I move—

Mr. Speaker, every person in South Africa with enough patriotism and sense of proportion realizes that race relations must continuously be handled in a spirit of goodwill and sympathy. But everybody who is patriotic and knows our country and realizes its problems also realizes that that sympathy and goodwill cannot be achieved by a mere throwing together of the various population groups in an attempt to create one nation in South Africa. There are differences—whether on historical, colour or biological grounds—which have to be borne in mind. And therefore everybody who wants to make a contribution towards good relations between the various communities must recognize, accept and bear these differences in mind when plans are made to deal with this matter in the future.

It is therefore my firm conviction that we should seek the welfare and progress of our country not in a deadly uniformity but in a diversity, a variety, in which every population group may, in so far as is practicable, reach full maturity. And in this diversity we must make it possible for a common allegiance to South Africa to be a binding force.

But after having accepted the principle of diversity, a second principle should also be accepted. There should be proper channels and means for consultation between the various population groups. However, in this regard I must reject the standpoint that the only basis for proper consultation and goodwill is an equal franchise on the same Voters’ Roll. We have seen too much in recent years how the practical application of this standpoint has led to the destruction of democracy and freedom in so many countries in regard to which the sentimentalists were formerly very enthusiastic but now increasingly keep silent. There is nothing wrong with the principle of one man, one vote, as long as it is exercised within the circle of the rights of a particular community or nation. But when the principle of one man, one vote is applied as the final determining factor for the future of more than one people who are intermingled in an unnatural manner in the same country, in spite of the differences, one of two results ensues. Ether the economically stronger of the relevant population groups applies discriminating measures to curtail the voting power of the weaker group, as was the case in South Africa for many years with the so-called Common Roll for Whites, Coloureds and Bantu, particularly because in this case the economically weaker groups would have had the numerical advantage—we know how the prescribed qualifications were intended from time to time to curtail the so-called “blanket” vote—or, alternatively, if such obviously artificial arrangements no longer work effectively, bitterness and strife and hatred arise which lead to the numerically stronger sections eventually assuming the dominant position and the minority disappearing without any thought being devoted to their rights. Has Africa not seen this process in full swing in recent times?

Therefore other ways of consultation have to be sought. But apart from the principle of seeking goodwill and consultation, every patriot also recognizes the undoubted right of the Whites to remain living in South Africa as a nation in its own right. And that does not mean that the White man in South Africa claims this right just for the present and is prepared gradually to retreat and to follow a policy of surrender. Therefore in any arrangements arrived at between the various population groups, we should bear in mind the undoubted right to continued existence of the White man. And the safety and good order and progress of South Africa as a State with a Christian character are closely dependent on the continued existence of this White nation with its strong position of power in Southern Africa. The continued existence of the White man is also the best guarantee for the safety and progress of the Coloureds as a minority group in the area of White South Africa.

I make this statement, Mr. Speaker, because I am one of those who basically believe that there can be no permanent home or any permanence, for even a section of the Bantu in the area of White South Africa. In other words, White South Africa must gradually free itself from the possibility of a Black proletariat gaining a hold over its economic future, because otherwise this urbanized Black proletariat will, by means of intermingling with the Coloureds, achieve a position of power over the whole of South Africa. The argument is sometimes advanced that the Coloureds, of all the non-White population groups, are nearest to the Whites, and because they have not a homeland of their own, like the Bantu, they must gradually be absorbed into the White community and that a start should be made with political integration. In passing I just want to point out that when such people talk about the Coloureds they, of course, omit to mention that there are various groups of Coloureds. There is the Cape Coloured, there is the Malay, there is the Griqua, and there are various other subgroups, a fact which leads to prejudice and conflict among the Coloureds. However, I do not wish to deal with this argument at length, but have we not tried this course for almost a century? And what was the result of the arrangement made in 1854? In the political sphere it resulted in the greatest bitterness between the Coloureds and a very large section of the White population. But nowhere did the developing Coloured become a mayor or a Member of Parliament. The few who were elected to the Cape Provincial Council were frustrated people. Did these so-called equal rights lead to socio-economic progress? Or did the masses of the Coloureds have to wait for the new era of parallel development in order to make the progress they are experiencing to-day in regard to housing, education and assistance through their own corporation?

The number of Coloureds (including Malays and Griquas), men and women, in the Republic above the age of 21 years is approximately 582,000. If the illiterates are left out of account, the number is approximately 350,000. If the supposition is correct that 85 per cent of the literates could register on the basis of the present qualifications demanded, at least 296,000 could be placed on a Common Voters’ Roll in the whole of the Republic.

Furthermore the fact should be taken into consideration that the Coloureds in general are concentrated in certain areas, particularly in the Western Cape. The result will be that if they are placed on the Common Roll they will have a voting power out of all proportion to their numerical strength and will be able to dominate a number of constituencies. In view of the experience gained in the past, I cannot imagine a greater factor for the destruction of good relations between the Whites and the Coloureds than such a state of affairs.

And even between the Whites.

Yes, as the Minister of Lands says, also between Whites and Whites. And along with that will disappear also a proper basis for consultation. But do the protagonists of such a Common Voters’ Roll realize to what extent they will then open the door for the urbanized Bantu in this way to share in that Common Roll?

I now want to say a few words in regard to a second argument which is often used in the search for a solution, viz. the question of direct representation. Certain circles sometimes take the line that the Coloured population should be represented by Coloureds in Parliament. The basis on which that can be done can surely be moral only if it bears in mind the numbers of enfranchised Coloureds in relation to the Whites. The question therefore immediately arises whether such representation takes into consideration the present number of 582,000 Coloureds, men and women, above the age of 21-years. The Government, and I as the responsible Minister, would be acting irresponsibly if we were to seek good race relations and means for consultation along this road.

Therefore no political party which has the interests of White South Africa at heart and believes in the happiness and prosperity of our country along the road of diversity and variety can adopt the Common Voters’ Roll or the principle of direct representation as a solution.

I should now briefly like to state another proposition as the background for the measure I am trying to advocate, a proposition in which I believe, and the truth of which I think can be proved from our history:

I want to say a few more words about the present measure and its background. In 1943 and thereafter we had, in respect of the Coloureds, the Coloured Advisory Council, known as the C.A.C. The object at the time was this, and I quote from a report by the then Secretary for Social Welfare, Mr. Kuske:

Much success was not achieved by this Advisory Council, and it died an early death, and it did so in a fairly unpleasant atmosphere. But it should not be forgotten that at the time when that council was established it was a nominated council, and the system of the Common Voters’ Roll was still in force. In spite of the power the Coloured had through that Voters’ Roll and the representation he had in this Parliament together with the White man, in spite of the fact that the Coloureds were registered by the thousands, particularly in Western Cape constituencies, and in spite of the fact that this was an element in the policy of integrated political rights and equality, the then Government, which was a supporter of the Common Voters’ Roll, considered it necessary by means of a separate Coloured Council to do something to enable the Government to be advised in regard to the economic, constitutional and social interests of the Coloured population. In other words, as such it was a condemnation of the existing system, in the sense that the existing system was not considered effective to advise the Government on economic, constitutional and social aspects, and not only was it a condemnation of it, but it was a further admission that this representation which the Coloureds had was inadequate, and that the Common Voters’ Roll in practice did not have the desired effect. In addition, it should be remembered that this admission should be added to the situation then already existing, that a large section of the White population felt bitter towards the Coloured population because of the existence of that Common Voters’ Roll, and that there was bitterness between the Whites themselves as the result of that position. In other words, in 1943 already the then Government admitted in so many words that the Common Voters’ Roll was not effective. Or why else did they establish this council?

The next step was taken by this Government with the legislation of 1951, and I should like to quote what the then Minister of the Interior said in regard to the Union Council. He first pointed out that some of the members of the council would be elected, and then he continued to say (translation)—

The first council, after 1948, was constituted during 1959, and originally this council was treated with contempt in certain circles, and attempts were even made to, belittle it. I can remember, and I shall prove it if necessary, that when this council was established it was said, inter alia, that they were a lot of Government stooges who would only agree with what the Minister said. It was said that a lot of inferior people were taken from the Coloured community and appointed to this council; there was reference to a lot of unknown Quislings who had to assist in justifying the suppressive policy of this Government. If necessary, I can prove this. And to-day? The same people who at that time belittled this council, who accused the members of the council of being a lot of inferior Quislings and who said that they were the stooges of the Government, have all changed their minds to-day to such an extent that every day there are attempts to play this council off against the Minister concerned, and people actually fall over themselves in their attempts to get hold of these councillors before their meetings and to tell them what resolutions they should adopt against the Government. Now they have become important.

What nonsense!

I did not refer to that hon. member. I say that articles even appeared in the public Press which at first referred to this council in such a belittling way as to say that it consisted of stooges, but that is no longer the case.

Is that the Banier?

If hon. members would like to have these extracts, I shall give them to hon. members when I reply. In other words, where the former council under the previous Government failed, this council which was born in an atmosphere of the greatest scepticism and unbelief gradually, in spite of its defects, achieved such status that people are beginning to laud it to-day, and it is being lauded by the very people who condemned it.

In the second place, the past five years also constituted valuable schooling for some of the members on the council in the sphere of public administration, and to-day this council fulfils a real need as a point of contact and a consultative organ in respect of the particular needs of the Coloured community.

That does not mean that at all times there is agreement in regard to standpoint between the council and the Minister concerned or other Ministers; it does not mean that we see eye to eye at all times. There have often been occasions when this council has adopted resolutions in respect of which I strongly differed from them, but it at least gave us the opportunity to discuss matters and to exchange ideas on the subject.

That is why the third step could be taken. The first step was the one taken by the previous Government, and which resulted in failure; we took the second step after 1948, and then the third step could be taken in 1960 when the hon. the Prime Minister on 7 December 1960 announced a further developmental step in regard to this council and said the following—

The Prime Minister, when he met this council, tried to give them a picture for the future in regard to the directions in which the Government believed that this council should develop. Thereafter I met the council on 26 June 1961 and gave them the opportunity themselves to make suggestions in connection with their development and reorganization. At their request, legal advisers, selected by themselves, were made available to them. The result was that the council in the beginning of 1963 submitted a memorandum to the Cabinet containing proposals affecting the future. I do not want to quote that memorandum now, but it amounted to this, that the number of elected members should be increased, that provision should also be made for such members in the other provinces, and that the four provinces should have greater representation on the council, that the franchise should be on a different basis, that the council should be given certain extra functions which it hitherto did not have, and that there were definite directions in which attempts had to be made to give the Coloureds a greater share in arranging their own lives.

Since 1961 further negotiations took place from time to time, with committees of the council and with the full council, but I as Minister was not present on a single one of these occasions. I consistently refrained from taking part in the discussions. I left it to the council and to the departmental officials and to the council’s legal adviser to come to final decisions.

I now come to the Bill as such. Hon. members will agree that this Bill is easily read and gives a clear picture of what is envisaged. As is customary, I will on this occasion refer only to the more important provisions of the measure.

If I were to summarize the objects of the Bill, I should say they were the following—

The first 12 clauses of the Bill deal with how the council is to be constituted, viz. a majority of elected members and a minority of nominated members. The basis on which the election takes place is the general franchise of men and women above the age of 21 years.

As I said in my introductory words, there can be no objection to the principle of one man, one vote if it applies to a population group and within its own circle. There can only be objection to the principle of one man, one vote if it means that the “one man, one vote” of other population groups is used to decide the fate of a particular population group, in this case the Whites, whose existence in this country guarantees the safety also of the other groups.

I think that the present Union Coloured Advisory Council approved of the basis of the franchise, as I have stated it, because there is not yet compulsory education for Coloureds everywhere and the age of 18 years would therefore be less acceptable as a qualification for the franchise. I personally do not feel strongly on this subject in regard to whether the age should be 18 or 21 years. It was their suggestion that it should be 21 years.

I would further draw attention to the fact that the registration of voters will be done on a voluntary basis. That may contribute towards eliminating undesirable elements, or limiting them to a minimum, and towards giving the Coloured who is really interested in the working of his council an opportunity to register. It is nevertheless a broader basis for the granting of the franchise than the Coloured has ever before had in the history of South Africa.

In regard to Clause 8, I must point out that the present council made the suggestion after carefully considering the various population figures of Coloureds in the various provinces. In the original memorandum they advanced their arguments and asked that there should be as little deviation as possible from the basis laid down in the Bill because they regard it as a reasonable basis. I also think that we have succeeded in obtaining a reasonable basis.

Fourthly, I must draw hon. members’ attention to the provisions in regard to the executive committee, as contained in Clauses 17 and 20, and also the provisions of Clause 21, by which legislative powers can be entrusted to the council. I make no secret of the fact that this can be done and that a specific course was adopted in regard to granting those rights because, as I shall show later, it will take an appreciable time before this council can be established. At this stage it is not wise to specify what legislative power they will have, or the form it should take. One must only create the means whereby one can grant those legislative powers in the light of the prevailing circumstances. It is a process of emancipation; it is a process which must follow on consultation and negotiation. It is not a process which can just take place holus bolus. It has been said that one should never try to do more for a person or a population group than they are prepared to do for themselves, and with this proposal, I think, we have the precautionary measure that we shall not be doing more for the Coloured population than they are prepared to do for themselves. As long as I remain the Minister, that will remain the policy, and they will have to show signs of initiative, of a sense of responsibility, of a willingness to serve, of faith in their own people; they will have to show signs that they are trying to escape from the misery and the difficulties of their own masses, before they receive responsibility from me.

What about the Transkei?

This process of the granting of a greater measure of control over matters affecting them directly is gradually being made possible by these clauses and are so formulated as to ensure that there will be consultation in regard to every step taken.

Now I just want to say at this stage that since the Bill was published I have had consultations with the four Administrators of the provinces on other matters, and they pointed out to me a defect in the existing Bill, viz. that it is not stated clearly that when powers at present held by the provinces are possibly transferred, that should also be done in consultation with the Administrator concerned. I have consequently agreed to add a further provision in Clause 21 in which it is stated clearly that there will also be consultation with the four Administrators, if necessary.

A further provision deals with the funds which the council will require to exercise its powers, and for their proper control. The accounts of the council will be subject to audit by the Controller and Auditor-General.

Further, provision is made for proper Standing Orders for this council, and that members must take a solemn oath or declaration in regard to their duties. That is contained in Clauses 26 and 27. I think it is one of the defects of the present council that the chairman is really powerless to keep proper order. I think we should see to it that the chairman is able to uphold the dignity of the council and maintain order, and that certain obligations will rest on the members of that council, so that when they speak there they will do it in such a way that they do not do more harm than good to their population group, because these proceedings of the council will be held in public. It is not the intention to exclude the Press. But then there will have to be proper rules of procedure to ensure that this council acts in such a way that it does not make a fool of itself and cast ridicule on us. [Laughter.] It seems to me that there are hon. members who would prefer that there should be no rules of procedure.

There are also a number of clauses in terms of which the authority of the State President, Parliament and other authorities are recognized and placed beyond all doubt (Clauses 17, 21 and 23).

I have already said that an appreciable time will have to elapse before all the work in connection with the registration of voters and the delimitation of constituencies can be completed and the proper functioning of the council can be made possible. Therefore the Bill provides that the term of office of the present councillors can be extended to bridge this period of preparation. I do not want to bind myself to a date, but this preparatory work must be done by the Department of the Interior, and the registration has to be finalized and Voters’ Rolls have to be drawn up and there must be delimitation, for which provision is made in the Bill, and I cannot see how this council can really be established before late in 1966, at the earliest. Therefore provision is made that use may be made of the present councillors for purposes of consultation during the transition stage.

Now an idea was expressed, inter alia, by the council itself that provision should be made in the Bill for the establishment of a standing select committee of both Houses of Parliament which in turn could consult with the Executive Committee of the Coloured Council in regard to proposed legislation affecting the Coloured population. The Government gave thorough consideration to this proposal, but after due consideration this proposal was not adopted because Parliament, of its own free will, can appoint a select committee whenever it considers it necessary to do so. To lay down such a procedure in legislation will, in our opinion, be wrong and in conflict with the spirit of Parliament. It was felt that instead of that proposal there should rather be another provision, which was in fact inserted in Clause 20 (3) and (4). In terms of that clause, a very specific opportunity is created for the council to consult not only with the particular Minister entrusted with their affairs, but that they will have access through that Minister to all other Ministers in the Cabinet. That is regarded as a much better form of consultation, because it can take place at the highest level.

Finally, the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly in the past referred to the possibility and the desirability of providing instruments on the basis of a four-stream policy which will make consultation possible on matters of common interest on the Commonwealth principle between Whites, Coloureds, Bantu and Indians. Thus each population group retains its rights in its own circle. This Bill is a further step towards making it possible for the Coloured population as a minority group also to have a share in the essential consultation. South Africa’s racial constitution offers no easy solution. Nowhere in the world is there an easy solution for racial relations. Nowhere in the world have we ever had an example of any other plan in regard to race relations having succeeded. Only one pattern has been successful, and that is the elimination of the minority group by the majority group. In the most civilized countries of the world colour and biological differences and historical differences play a role between the various races and their relations with one another. Therefore South Africa cannot go to the outside world in its search for a solution of its difficult problem, and in addition its problem is unique in the sense that here we have a minority group which is a nation in its own right, the Whites, and that nation is the protector of the rights of the other population groups. We find ourselves in unique circumstances. Therefore we must have the courage to seek our own solution. This is a serious attempt along the road which we regard as the only possible one, the road of neighbourliness with diversity and the recognition of each section’s rights in its own circle, the preservation of the rights of the Whites, but also the right of emancipation for those who are under our tutelage and who must be taught to assume greater responsibilities towards their own people.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is another step on the road of separate development, the policy of this Government, a policy with which we do not agree. This policy is harmful to the good relations of the two sections, the Coloureds and the Whites in this country, good relations which have existed for a very long period. It is only since the present Government has come into power that those relations have been disturbed. The hon. the Minister stated here that there was bitterness between the Whites and the Coloureds and even between the Whites themselves when the Coloureds were on the Common Roll. But the Coloured people were on the Common Roll for a century and for the greater part of that time there was no bitterness whatsoever. Even in the days of the old Nationalist Party under General Hertzog there was no bitterness at all.

Have you read B. K. Long’s book?

I make bold to say that bitterness did not exist on the part of General Hertzog and his party against the Coloured people, and why? Because in those days the Coloured people voted for the Nationalist Party as well as for the old S.A. Party. We remember the days when the Coloureds voted Mr. Bruckner de Villiers into Parliament and the S.A. Party had no bitterness against the Coloureds on account of that. This policy, Mr. Speaker, is harmful and will further deteriorate the good relations that have always existed between the two sections, and under no circumstances can we support this Bill.

When this debate was adjourned a few weeks ago, I had told the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that his allegation that a large number of our tourists did not consist of holidaymakers was not correct. I am sorry the hon. member is not present to-day because I should like to reply to that point. I wish to draw his attention to the fact that there is an international definition of who can be regarded as a tourist, a definition which has been accepted by a committee of experts of the old League of Nations and which is to-day accepted by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, the so-called O.E.C.D. As the hon. member knows, not only Europe but Canada and the U.S.A. are members of that organization. That definition which is to-day universally accepted reads as follows—

1. (a) Persons travelling on holiday or for family or health reasons, etc.;
2. (b) Persons travelling to meetings or on duty of all kinds, scientific, administrative, diplomatic, religious, sports, etc.;
3. (c) Persons travelling for business reasons;
4. (d) Visitors on an ocean cruise, even if they stay for less than 24 hours.

Then they define those persons who cannot be regarded as tourists—

1. (a) Persons arriving with or without a contract of work to take up employment or follow a profession in the country;
2. (b) Other persons coming to take up residence in the country;
3. (c) Students, young persons in boarding establishments or schools;
4. (d) Frontiersmen, persons living in a country and working in another; and
5. (e) Persons travelling through the country without stopping, even if the journey lasts more than 24 hours.

With or without a piano.

I want to point out that the hon. member is wrong and that notwithstanding this current definition the majority of our tourists to-day are in fact holiday-makers. If he looks at the report of the Tourist Corporation he will notice that we had 166,102 tourists from Africa in 1962 of whom 135,295 were holiday-makers. There were 27,536 tourists from Europe of whom 17,700 were here on holiday. From America 6,254 tourists visited our country of whom 4,000 were holiday-makers. If we take the total of 202,000 tourists who visited South Africa in 1962 we find that 185,800 or 78 per cent were holiday-makers. That is why I say the hon. member is not correct when he says this country is only visited by business people. He is creating a wrong impression which does an injustice to the work of the Tourist Corporation.

This Bill is the direct result of the establishment of the Ministry and Department of Tourism. The step taken last year was an important one, a very important one, in the development of tourism. One does not want to detract from the good work done by the Tourist Corporation during the years but they never had a voice in this House, Sir, and under the present set-up this House can give more effective attention to the promotion of tourism than in the past. That is why we are pleased that we have a Minister of Tourism in this House to-day, a Minister who can report to the House and who can be called to account by this House.

After World War II most modern countries became very tourist conscious. Tourism is one of the most important earners of foreign exchange to-day. When you think of it, Sir, that we give a great deal of attention to-day to the promotion of overseas markets, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that tourism plays a very important role in finding overseas markets for us, because the people who visit South Africa to-day are clients who come here to spend money. Where we know that tourists already spend R64,000,000 per annum in South Africa that is tantamount to our having exported R64,000,000 worth of goods overseas. I saw the other day that the corporation expected us to earn R100,000,000 this year from tourism and that is not an amount that we can ignore. When we think of it that it is estimated that the turnover of the world tourist industry is $4,000,000,000, our R64,000,000 or the expected R100,000,000 only constitutes a very small percentage of that. That is why, from that point of view, great attention should be given to our tourist industry, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to-day of discussing this Bill.

But there are other reasons as well why it is important. We all know the old saying “onbekend is onbemind” (you do not love that which you do not know). We spend large sums of money annually in an effort to remedy the distorted image of South Africa in the world outside and as part of that process we bring a number of influential persons to South Africa annually to see for themselves what is happening here. The tourists who visit this country can play a similar role. In the tourists we literally have thousands of people coming to South Africa annually at their own expense and they can therefore form their own opinion as to what is happening here. We cannot under-estimate the value of that in order to correct the image the outside world has of us. For that reason, too, I think we should encourage tourists to come to South Africa although we must admit that there are certain limitations in our country as far as tourism is concerned and I wish to deal with a few of them.

I think we can divide the tourists to South Africa into two groups. The first group are those who come from the Continent of Africa and the other group are those who come from other continents. I shall call them the within-Continental and the inter-Continental groups. Hon. members have already pointed out that as a result of the happenings in Africa the number of tourists from Africa to South Africa could be expected to drop because the number of White people has decreased. In other words, if we want to increase the number of tourists who come to South Africa we shall have to compensate for that loss by attracting more tourists from other continents. One of our main drawbacks is the distance between South Africa and Europe and America. That makes a trip here very expensive. That is why South Africa will find it difficult to compete with Europe or South America in attracting tourists from Europe or America and I think we must face up to the fact that we shall not draw large numbers of young people to South Africa. We shall have to concentrate mainly on the older and richer people of the world. We must accept that. When you look at surveys taken in Britain which is in a much better position than South Africa to attract tourists from other continents, the survey taken in 1955 shows that 59 per cent of the American tourists to Britain in that year were of the age group 45 to 50 years. A further 20 per cent were of the age group 35 to 44 years, and only 21 per cent were under 35 years. I think we must face up to that fact, because a trip to South Africa is expensive and will mainly be undertaken by the richer tourist.

I mention this fact because I want to plead with the hon. the Minister and his Department to-day to establish a research section ether in his Department or in the Tourist Corporation. Research plays a very important role to-day in promoting tourism between the various countries in the world. One method employed is to make a sample survey which is used extensively to determine the markets in the various countries where tourists can be canvassed. There is also another method of finding the markets which can be used. They use all sorts of methods such as personal interviews with tourists. The first object of the research I am pleading for is to determine in which particular country there is a tourist market; where can South Africa get tourists, and after that you must concentrate on a propaganda campaign amongst those people. If you can determine where your tourist market is you can also determine what type of publicity you should undertake. The hon. member for Turffontein spoke about the bikini-clad girls at Clifton. If we have to rely on the older tourist we shall not achieve much by showing films of the bikini girls at Clifton.

The second object of the research should be to determine which will be the second group of people we shall attract, what their needs will be and how we can meet those needs. Once you know what the market is you know what facilities to provide. In other words, if you know you will attract wealthy and older people the facilities you provide must be accordingly. That is why we must know what sort of people will visit South Africa. But the nature of the propaganda and the kind of attractions you offer are important. It is no good advertising Clifton if the older people are not going to swim, except perhaps if they want to look at the pretty girls. Then I want to plead that we must have greater certainty and be more sure of the object we have in mind and that we should not rely on the old method of trying to hit the target. We are a young country and we cannot compete with the old countries with their wonderful cultural wealth. We do not have those historically old things to show the people. That is why we should make a start with what we have and create artificial attractions from that point because the old tourist countries of Europe created many artificial comforts to attract people to Europe. We have the wonderful Kruger National Park which I want to give as example and in respect of which I want to say a few words.

Where the Kruger National Park is a big attraction, there are many things in that park that we must develop further, things that will induce the people in the Eastern Transvaal to visit it for a much longer period than just a few days. That is why one is pleased that beautiful roads are to-day being constructed in that area, such as the beautiful Koewynspas which was opened a year ago, and to-day the beautiful Long Tom Pass between Lydenburg and Sabie. You also have the Strijdom tunnel along the mountain route which is being developed. But there is much more in the Eastern Transvaal that can be developed to ensure that people extend their visit beyond just a few days at the National Park. We should make a survey of all our various attractions and take that as our central point round which to provide other things. I have in mind our hot springs. When you think what they do in Europe to make their hot springs attractive to tourists and if we wish to attract the older people to South Africa we are making very little use of those springs, considering our sunny climate and long season. We can make much better use of our hot springs and there should also be further planning in their vicinity. I do not wish to speculate any further. I only tried to prove my point that we should start with what we have and develop those further.

I want to say something else; I am very grateful for the reply the Minister gave this morning. If we want to attract the wealthy tourists the facilities we offer will have to be of international standard. That is why we welcome the fact that it is the intention to erect a number of luxury tourist hotels in South Africa. I think the three mentioned are by far not enough nor should they be concentrated in one place; they should be spread over the country. You must select strategic points and build hotels there. The facilities offered must be planned and you must also take the vicinity into account. Perhaps a luxury hotel in the game reserve may be an attraction. The luxury hotels must be planned according to the attractions we offer. I am pleased therefore that the Government is giving attention to this matter. In Europe the tourist industry is assisted in various ways, inter alia, by giving hotels loans and subsidies at cheap rates and granting them tax concessions. That is why I am pleased that the Government is giving attention to this matter.

I wish to point out that the competition for tourists has become very keen in the world to-day. It is clear that we are facing very strong competition. When we look at the tourist trade in South Africa we realize that although tourism has increased tremendously throughout the world over the past ten years the inter-Continental tourist trade to South Africa has practically remained constant. Where it is expected that in 1975 the tourist traffic of the world will be four times as heavy as it was in 1960, we shall have to do much more if we want to attract a larger number of those tourists to South Africa. That is why we cannot rest on our laurels. One is actually sorry to read in the annual report of the Tourist Corporation that they lack the funds for certain aspects of their work, such as making the maximum use of their films for example. In welcoming this Bill and the establishment of a Department of Tourism. I want to plead that we should not continue with this method of just trying to hit the target but that we should employ scientific methods and that we should give attention to research in particular so that we shall know where to get tourists and concentrate on attracting them here.

I agree with some points made by the last speaker, particularly his remark that research should be done. To-day in all modern business and industry you have to have research to know exactly what your requirements are, etc. Also, in regard to tourism, we need careful research before taking casual decisions, and I wish to support him in that.

Now, the House debated this Bill on 28 February last, six weeks ago, and much of what was said then has faded in the memories of hon. members. I feel therefore that it is a little difficult to reply to former arguments and to put the case stated by hon. members on this side of the House because to a large extent what they have said has been forgotten. Whilst I do not wish to be repetitive, I should like to remind hon. members of some of the things that were said then. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) put the case of this side of the House very clearly and stated what our views are, and I will not repeat their arguments. But my constituency is very gravely concerned with this Bill and therefore I would like to put their case as they see it, and I hope the House will bear with me. I have a copy here of a letter written by the Hotel Association (non-liquor) of the Cape to the Minister. I know that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) referred to this letter and quoted two or three bits of it. This letter puts the case clearly from their point of view. I come back to this because, as I say, there are large numbers of these hotels in my constituency. With your permission, Sir, I would just like to read the letter again to refresh our memories because this letter states the position more clearly than I could have stated it. In referring to the National Federation of Hotels Associations (non-liquor) of South Africa, the letter said—

That is a point which the hon. member for Von Brandis stressed very strongly, and so did the hon. member for Turffontein. I will come back to what they said a little bit later. The letter goes on to say—

We are, to say the least of it, surprised and mystified that such a far-reaching change in the present system is contemplated before the Hotel Inquiries Commission presents its report, which presumably will give consideration to the whole aspect of grading, which, in effect, may be dealt with by bodies other than the South African Tourist Corporation.

We would like to point out quite clearly that our organization is not necessarily against the principle of grading. However, we feel that there may be a great conflict of purpose and direction, and that surely it is only after the commission has presented its report, which undoubtedly will contain within it recommendations as to what body should be placed in charge of hotel affairs; what bodies will be represented on such body; how grading is to be set into operation; and who exactly is to be responsible for the institution and execution of such system, that this question be finalized.

We accordingly most respectfully request that this particular Section 1 (b) of the contemplated Tourists Corporation Bill be deleted, and left over until such time as the Hotel Inquiries Commission has presented its full report.

Sir, that point was put very clearly over and over again by speakers on this side of the House. We support this Bill but we feel that before incorporating this Clause 1n the Bill the Minister should await the commission's report. As I have said, there are large numbers of private hotels in my constituency. They are to a large extent non-liquor hotels. They serve a very important part of a highly respectable group of middle and lower income groups. Many of these people are pensioners. To many of these people a charge of an extra few shillings per week makes a difference. These are not luxury hotels. They are well run, clean hotels with a reasonable table. I have seen that myself on many occasions. They are not luxury hotels and cannot be classed as such. But, to come back to what the hon. member for Von Brandis said, if they get a low classification it will harm their business seriously. These hotels are of a high grade in terms of the fees they charge. Sir, Clause 1 (b) now proposes to classify these hotels even if no application has been made for classification. Many of these hotels have but few overseas visitors as guests. Most of them serve people living in South Africa, pensioners and older people. We know that there is a Commission of Inquiry sitting, as was stressed by the hon. member for Von Brandis. This commission is likely to appoint a board on which this class of hotel will have representation. Why, then, bring this legislation in before the commission has reported?

During the second-reading debate I put a question to the hon. the Minister on these lines, I said (Col. 2153)—

The Minister replied—

I had no intention of attacking the Minister on this. I am trying to put it to him as a reasonable man that we have a commission sitting, which is going to go into this matter completely and fully. I again interrupted the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House and said—

The Minister of Tourism: I am convinced that, without having had the commission’s report, in South Africa we have to tackle registration and classification on a compulsory basis and not on a voluntary basis.

Maj. van der Byl; You are forestalling your commission.

The Minister of Tourism: No, I am not, I am awaiting their report, but if I need the authority I have it here. If I have to operate on a compulsory basis I do not want to find myself in the position that I am not allowed to do so.

But surely if this legislation goes through without Clause 1 (b), the Minister can still introduce a short amending Bill afterwards if it is necessary to do so in the light of the commission’s report. Here you have a responsible commission sitting at the present time; why not wait until it reports?

As I say, the hon. member for Von Brandis put our case clearly. He said (Col. 2158)—

That is all I am asking the hon. the Minister to do. Sir, the Tourist Corporations have no hotel representative on its board. Is that not correct?

It has a hotel representative but not one nominated by hotel associations. I refer to Mr. Pentzhorn.

Surely he is not a hotel man. I am not going to contradict the hon. the Minister because I do not have the facts. I believe that they have no real representation on the board. I do not want to contradict the Minister without being able to produce my evidence but I am convinced that he is wrong. However, he can look up the facts and let us know what the position is. The new board, however, will have such representation. Why should it not be left to the hotels to ask for classification? Why should this type of hotel have to be classified when it is not necessary? Sir, I also appeal to the Minister to agree to the representations made by the hon. members for Von Brandis and Turffontein. I would urge the Minister please to leave out Clause 1 (b), until such time as the commission has reported. He said in the second-reading debate that he wanted to take this power now. Well, if the power is not required and if the commission does not recommend that he should take this power, why should he incorporate it in the Bill at this stage? Once more therefore I suggest to him that he should drop Clause 1 (b). As far as we can see this Bill is necessary, and we support it, but I ask the Minister to drop Clause 1 (b). I do hope he will do so.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who has just sat down emphasized what was said by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). I appreciate the fact that the hon. member supports this Bill in principle. But it is a pity that the hon. member did not quote the hon. member for Von Brandis a little further. The hon. member for Von Brandis said: “Get on with the job.” The way in which the hon. member for Von Brandis addressed the hon. Minister for Information and Tourism is something which I as a backbencher really cannot understand. I say that it is a pity that the hon. member for Green Point did not also quote what the hon. member for Von Brandis had to say in this connection. In any event, I appreciate the fact that he supports the Bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this matter we must have clarity in the first place in regard to the aims of the principal Act. It is perfectly clear that the aim of the South African Tourist Corporation Act of 1947 is the expansion of our young tourist industry. The principal Act seeks to expand our tourist industry by making available the necessary travelling facilities and accommodation. Bearing in mind these aims I can understand why the hon. member for Von Brandis wants us to get on with the job, and there are many hon. members in this House who hold the same view, particularly when we consider what was said by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) in connection with the financial aspects of this matter and particularly when we have regard to the income derived from this industry by other countries. I do not want to weary the House by quoting statistics but I want to mention a few figures in support of my argument. These figures are for the year 1961; they are therefore out of date by two years. During that year Britain attracted 1,800,000 tourists who spent a total of $575,000,000. Austria attracted 5,000,000 tourists who spent $270,000,000, which is about 10 per cent of the value of the total exports of Austria. Ireland attracted 5,000,000 tourists who spent $130,000,000 which amounts to about 30 per cent of the value of the exports of Ireland. Spain attracted 7,800,000 tourists who spent $450,000,000 which is about 40 per cent of the value of the exports of Spain whereas Italy, which stood at the top of the list that year, attracted 21,500,000 tourists who spent $840,000,000. This gives us an indication of the importance of this industry. It also shows that the Government was justified in establishing this Department as a separate Department under the hon. the Minister of Information and Tourism. These figures justify the plea of the hon. member for Von Brandis that we should get on with the job but, unlike the hon. member for Von Brandis, I am not afraid that we will move too slowly. I am afraid that we will move too fast, because in dealing with tourism there are certain matters to which one has to give careful consideration. In the first place, we are dealing here with a particular group of people in society, a group of people who are more or less independent financially, and who have money at their disposal that they want to spend in a way which will give them pleasure. We are dealing with a group of people who are well aware of the fact that they are welcomed with open arms in all countries because they have the means to build up any country’s tourist industry. They have the potential not only to assist a country materially but also to make propaganda for a country when they leave that country and return to their own homes. I must also add that it would be difficult for any country, particularly South Africa, to find a cheaper form of advertising its attractions than through the medium of tourists. That is why I say that we must make doubly sure that we are in a position to receive tourists in our country and to receive them in such a way that they will enjoy their stay here; that they will get value for their money and that they will return to their homelands with the right impression so that they can make favourable propaganda for our country overseas. There is another matter, too, that we must not overlook and that is that we are dealing to-day with international tourists. It will be those people whom we shall attract, people who have already travelled through Europe and North America and who are now looking for other sights to see. In order to satisfy them we will have to try to offer them something which they have not yet seen in other countries and which it will not cost them very much to see in this country. In other words, we must offer them something different, not simply bathing facilities and beach resorts and scenic attractions. They may perhaps have seen similar scenic beauties in other countries. We must find out whether we do not have other attractions which will grip the imagination of these people. We must show them things which they have not been able to see in other countries. I think that we do have such attractions in our country. Apart from that we must remember that travelling has been made more convenient in recent years; tariffs have been reduced; our monetary system has been adapted to suit the requirements of the traveller better than it did in the past. If we concentrate intensively on a specific point in advertising the attractions of our country it is not at all impossible that within a reasonable space of time we shall attract more tourists than we can properly accommodate in our country. That is a risk that we shall have to take. During 1962 we attracted about 202,000 tourists to this country. Here again, if we want to learn from past experience, there are certain things that we must not overlook. From 1947 to 1962 the number of tourists increased by 132,000 but the number of beds in licensed hotels only increased by 27,000! Another significant point is that since 1958 the number of tourists travelling on our roads has increased by 19,000. The number of tourists using our air services has only increased by 9,000 whereas the number of tourists who travel by rail and by boat has gradually decreased. The first lesson that we ought to learn from this is that we should maintain the correct balance between the number of people visiting our country and the accommodation that we have available for them. The second lesson that we must learn is that our visitors concentrate mainly on our roads. This is a fact that we must not lose sieht of. The fact that tourists concentrate mainly on our roads is an indication that they want to see the countryside; that they want to travel slowly and comfortably and quietly through the countryside. That is why it is necessary for us to make suitable arrangments for these tourists who use our roads. It will not help us to attract a vast number of tourists to this country if our hotel accommodation is inadequate or unsatisfactory. In saying this I do not mean that all tourists demand luxury hotels. Even though they may be able to afford these hotels, they do not always want to stay in luxury hotels on their travels. Other tourists may perhaps prefer hotels which have no more than ordinary amenities. Another section may perhaps prefer an outdoor life and prefer to stay at rest camps. These are matters which must be considered in our planning because we want to promote this young industry of ours. Nor will it avail us to have the necessary accommodation available unless our roads are in good condition. I cannot imagine anybody enjoying a trip in any part of the country if he has to travel on a bumpy and dusty road. And good roads and adequate accommodation will not help us ether unless the sights along those routes used by the tourists are such that we can derive full value from the caoital invested in roads and hotel accommodation. On the contrary, when the tourist returns overseas he is going to make negative propaganda for us instead of positive propaganda. That is why it is so important for us not to be over-hasty in trying to promote this young industry. A tourist industry is not something which is built up overnight.

It is built up and nurtured by the natural resources of a country; it is a national asset and a permanent asset and that is why I say that when we plan our tourist routes, we must be sure that those routes will serve as advertising signboards for our country. What do we find in certain parts of our country to-day? What is the position? In the rural areas our forebears built their little housing schemes practically alongside our national roads. Do they serve as an advertisement for us? Can we advertise them to the outside world? The fault does not lie with the State. The Department of Coloured Affairs has already taken the necessary steps in this connection; negotiations have already been entered into with the Administrators of the various provinces for the provinces to do the administrative work and the Department of Coloured Affairs will then provide the capital. But that has not yet been done. We need time to do it. Rome was not built in a day. I just want to emphasize the fact that we must be extremely careful, in view of the feeling that exists in the world to-day in regard to South Africa, that in our enthusiasm for this important matter we do not do the wrong thing and bring about the very thing that we do not want.

I want to invite the hon. the Minister of Information and Tourism to visit the northwest. Let us harness the enthusiasm which exists on the part of every local body; let us canalize that enthusiasm, let us co-ordinate that enthusiasm and use it in the interests of our country so that we can reap the fruits of our endeavours when the tourist returns to his own country.

In support of what I have said—that I should like the hon. the Minister to apply this legislation in the north-west—I should like to mention just a few matters in connection with this vast remote part of our country. Sir, here we have an area that is completely different; it is an area of strange contrasts; it is a desert area and, one might almost say, an area of nothingness, but it is also an area of fabulous riches, the sort of riches for which people have been prepared to risk and give their lives. We know that amongst tourists we find people who are prepared to risk their money and their lives. The north-west offers such people ample opportunity. About 150 miles to the north of Cape Town we suddenly come upon roads which are unsuitable for tourist traffic. We simply do not have good roads there and it is no use saying that we do have good roads merely because of enthusiasm for our cause. This is a matter which requires sober consideration. About 150 miles to the north of Cape Town we have the Knegsvlakte, wrongly called the Knersvlakte because nature is so cruel there. Its climate is in complete contrast to the moderate climate of the Western Province. The correct name for this area is Knegsvlakte. It is a lonely part of the world because it is waterless. It is an area in which the plant life, the dandelion and the vygle (Mesembryanthemum) compete with the backglound. runtuer no in we have a large variety of plants and flowers. In the gateway to Namaqualand proper, the area between Bitterfontein and Garies, we have hilly country, and when nature co-operates the slopes of the hills are adorned in certain months during the spring with a beautiful carpet of purple flowers. When the visitor follows the winding road to the north he finds suddenly himself on the Namaqualand plateau. In his immediate vicinity the scene assumes a patchwork pattern varying from arable land to fallow land and hilly country thickly overgrown with bushes and flowers. To the east lies the Kamiesberg mountain range with its forest-covered ravines; to the west lies the hilly country which gradually slopes down to the coast where the waters of the Atlantic Ocean are dimly visible and fade away in the hazy mist of a spring day. For the first time the tourist gets a panoramic view of the diamond fields of Namaqualand —the coastal area—stretching from the Olifants River up to the Orange River mouth. Sir, fabulous riches were unearthed there in bygone days and I daresay even more fabulous legends and stories were woven around those treasures. Here we have an area of fabulous riches—diamonds above the ground, diamonds under the ground and diamonds in the water in the bowels of the earth.

Where are they now?

Mr. Speaker, it is a strange thing that the hon. member over there with his economic leanings and tradition is not familiar with that part of the world! Further north the visitor quite unexpectedly comes upon the humble hamlet of Kamieskroon in the folds of the Kamiesberg mountain range. Here he finds himself in the very heart of Namaqualand, a part of our country renowned for its vygles and for its calendulae. Further to the north lies the main town of Namaqualand, Springbok, in the copperbelt, situated between massive hills. Sir, what a delightful scene unfolds itself before the eyes of the tourist on a spring day late in August between those majestic hills—huge rockeries designed and beautified by the Creator Himself. In spring, when the water has flowed down the slopes of the hill, the gnarled vygle grows in a profusion of colour wherever the water has wound its way over the soft earth until it disappears from view behind tall shrubs and scattered granite boulders. Mr. Speaker, assailed by the scent of the flowers and plants, a scent which blends with the sweet smell of damp earth, the visitor experiences a feeling akin to what must have been in the mind of a celebrated poet like Leipoldt when he wrote his simple little poem entitled “ ’n Handvol Gruis”—

And may I add, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker, I must hurry. In a year of good rainfall in the north-west, nature is lavish with his flowers. Once the visitor travelling over bumpy roads has left the Namaqualand hills behind him, the plains of Bushmanland stretch out before him. There, as far as the eye can see, the orange-coloured gousblom of Namaqualand grows waist-high in a solid bank, to the north and to the south and far to the east on the slopes of the hills where the sun-bleached desert grass is transformed by this blaze of orange into a flaming sea. But, alas, the visitor must say farewell to this garden, a natural garden which is the largest in the world. Sir, this is a scene of such sheer splendour that it takes one’s breath away; it is the work of the Creator and the Creator alone. Leaving this scene, the desert opens up before the visitor and then, unexpectedly, the green valley of the Orange River, the main artery of the north-west, unfolds before his eyes. At the Place of the Great Noise the grey muddy waters of the Orange plunge recklessly a dizzy 485 feet straight down to the bottom of the Aughrabies Falls. There is little plant life; granite rocks, splintered and shattered, lie strewn around bearing testimony to the devastating work of the cruel sun through the ages.

As the visitor travels eastward, following the course of the Orange River, he comes upon cotton lands, lucerne lands and carefully tended row upon row of sultanas, until he passes Keimoes. There are 3,000 farmers in the valley of the Orange River, the only river in South Africa which has a delta. This is the only place where one finds communities of island dwellers. This fact may not perhaps be of very much interest to a foreign visitor but it is of particular importance to a local visitor; it is a quirk of nature. This is where 50 per cent of the country’s lucerne is produced, 52 per cent of our cotton, 87 per cent of our sultanas and 49 per cent of the dried fruit of our country. These products are produced by these 3,000 farmers. Eventually, the visitor arrives at Upington, the main town of the north-west. There, to the eye of the expert, beats the pulse of the north-west. For 200 miles to the north there is the Kalahari Desert. These 200 miles fall in the Gordonia area. Sir, this is desert land; it is the home of the black diamond, the karakul sheep. Karakul farms are scattered throughout the area. The landscape changes again and soon the visitor is faced with a strange natural phenomenon in the shape of 90 miles of dunes, row upon row of them, all facing in the same direction. And in that Kalahari desert tough North-westers are taming the desert; the struggle for water in the Kalahari desert continues day and night. Here we have the home of the gemsbok, the pride of the Republic of South Africa, the pride of the Kalahari and the prize buck of the dunelands of Gordonia. Eventually, the traveller comes upon something out of the ordinary, a nature reserve, the Kalahari Gemsbok Park, trapped in a dune world between two former rivers, the Ohop and the Nossop; a reserve which is the home of vast numbers of gemsbok, eland and springbok. Sir, nowhere in the world does the king of beasts show up to better advantage and more proudly. As far as its size is concerned it offers a challenge to any member of its species on the Continent of Africa and its roar, carried by the night winds across the desert, brings lustre to this particular nature reserve.

Sir, we invite the visitor to come to Namaqualand, to come to Gordonia, to come to the north-west. When it becomes necessary to entertain the sort of visitor who is looking for something different, who is searching for something out of the ordinary, we invite the hon. the Minister to bring that visitor to the north-west. Let him bring to the north-west those people who have their eyes on the distant horizon, who are searching for material riches, who are looking for something which enriches but which is not negotiable— something which is a permanent national treasure. I say, Mr. Speaker—

With apologies to the poet!

As we say farewell to this fair land I regret that we must bring the debate back from the lyrical and delightful travalogue to which we have just listened. Perhaps, in doing so, I might suggest to the hon. the Minister that he has a ready-made adviser to his Department in the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) to write some of his propaganda pieces to draw the crowds. There was one unfortunate aspect in the remarks the hon. member for Gordonia has just made. That was his reference to not rushing too fast because people might see things which we did not want them to see and go back with the wrong impression. He referred particularly to locations which were along main roads. I think it was unfortunate that that should have been brought into the debate. Sir, we should not be ashamed of anything in South Africa. We should not be ashamed to show anything in this country. I do not believe we should mark time because we are afraid too many tourists will come out to this country, I would like to see as many as humanly possible come out here. If there are things that are wrong then they must be put right, but we cannot hide them behind a fence or move them away from the main roads and say: “You can’t see it from the main road now so it does not exist any more.” Let us rather have the black spots of South Africa visible so that we can eradicate them and not move them away so that they cannot be seen.

For advertising overseas?

If the hon. member is afraid why does he not see that his Government removes these things of which the outside world will take adverse notice. The hon. member says the outside world will be put off. Surely that is not the job of the Tourist Department. I was sorry that the hon. member should have brought into what was otherwise a delightful eulogy of his area, this unfortunate comment of not bringing out too many tourists to South Africa.

You missed the whole point.

I did not miss the point at all. The hon. member clearly said: Let us have tourists but there are certain things which may do us harm so do not let us be in too much of a hurry. The hon. member can check his Hansard; that was what he said.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Bill before us places a responsibility on the Minister. I am not going to deal in detail with the various places in the country to which we must draw tourists. The fact remains that this Bill places a responsibility upon the Minister. I think it has been clear from the speeches made on both sides of the House that there is a tremendous task resting on his shoulders. We have four aspects of tourism with which the Minister has to deal. One is the attractions—we have heard a great deal about those atractions—and the advertising of those attractions. The second is the tourist himself, the person who is to come and look at that attraction. The third is the facilities for travel, to get him here and to get him from point to point in the country. The fourth is the accommodation in which he lives here. Up to now the South African Tourist Corporation has done excellent work but it has concentrated its efforts almost entirely on the attractions which exist; on trying to draw people to those attractions. Having got the person to come to South Africa that is really the end of the story. The Minister must now pick up the work from that point. Not only must he draw people to South Africa but having got them here he must deal with the other facets of tourism, their accommodation, their travel facilities and the areas, places etc. at which they are going to look.

I think my own constituency is an excellent example of what can be done with imagination. I do not think anyone in this House can deny that the beach front of Durban to-day—it falls within my constituency—has set an example of how to attract people to a centre, and how to entertain them when they are there, which is a notable one in South Africa. There is nowhere else in the country which even starts to compare with what is being done there. For every age-group, for every economic group, for every type of holiday-maker facilities of one sort or another are available; children’s paddling ponds to night clubs, to go from the one extreme to the other. In between there is the exploitation of the beach itself, boat ponds, playgrounds, almost anything you can think of, Sir, which is designed to draw people and to make their stay an attractive one. That is done with the specific object of exploiting a specific asset, an asset which is peculiar to Durban itself.

I mentioned that purely as an example of what can be done and how it works in practice. Because to-day, where it used to be a city with two seasons a year, Durban is virtually a 12 month a year holiday resort. People come there throughout the year because there is something to come for. There are hotels to live in when they get there and there are other facilities. They can make a memorable occasion of their visit. That, I believe, is the sort of pattern which the hon. the Minister can follow on a broader scale, using the natural assets which South Africa has to offer. I do not say that you must deal with other assets in the same way; obviously, you would not try to deal with a nature reserve in the same way as Durban has dealt with her problem. But the thing is imagination, the willingness to take a risk, to spend money and to ensure as far as possible that the wishes and the desires of the people you are attracting are met. I believe these things have been neglected. I do not intend to go into them in detail. I do not believe that is the purpose of this debate. The purpose of this debate is to launch the Minister on the course which he must follow as soon as this Bill is passed. He now accepts responsibility for the exploitation of our tourist trade. I believe he will have the complete and unqualified support of every South African in that task. The Minister is the person who, under this measure, accepts the responsibility. We are launching him on the course which we expect him to follow and in doing so I believe he has tremendous scope, to revolutionize the tourist industry completely. I am not going to repeat the figures given by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Turffontein which indicate that we have no reason to be satisfied with the statistics of our foreign tourist trade. The Minister has been Minister of this Department for over a year. He will know the snags Satour representatives overseas come up against. He will know the emphasis which is placed upon accommodation. He will know the importance which is placed upon having available the sort of accommodation which the rich tourist is used to and which he expects to find in the places which he visits. The Minister will be aware of the problem of getting the message across; he will be aware of the importance of the travel agent in any tourist propaganda and advertising campaign.

It is no good getting people interested if, when they get to the tourist office, they are put off by the agent who serves them. These are all problems the Minister has to face. We wish him luck with that task. We believe it is overdue; it has been neglected and it is going to call for hard work and it is going to call for imagination. The Minister will have available to him the goodwill of the whole country and particularly the goodwill of all those people concerned with tourism. There are innumerable things which can be done. I am sure that he will find, for instance, the car-hire companies and those companies which arrange safaris and coach tours, only too willing and happy to co-operate with him and making available to him the information they have gathered from practical experience. Everyone of these instances which work with tourists have practical experience of the complaints and equally so the things which attract tourists. They know what pleases the tourist; they know what makes the tourist say “I am coming back again”; they know what makes the tourist say “I am fed-up; I am not doing this trip again”. Now, the Minister has that information available to him from those people who day in and day out work with the tourist and have the closest and the only real knowledge which matters.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) was so right when he said we must have scientific “reklamewerk”. The people who can provide the facts and the detailed information necessary for any scientific survey in the country are those who deal with tourists day in and day out. I am going to leave it at that by emphasizing again that the Minister must go outside the field of merely putting up a few posters and work with the other three facets of tourism, accommodation, travelling facilities and the attractions.

I want to deal with one of those in a little more detail, and that is the question of accommodation. I want at the same time to support the plea of the hon. member for Von Brandis and the plea of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) made this morning in regard to the classification of hotels. The hon. member for Green Point gave the point of view of the private hotel, the unlicensed hotel, of which there are many in his constituency. The hon. member for Von Brandis dealt with hotels in general, and I know the Minister has had approaches in this regard. There is no objection to classification. I do not think you will find that the hotels are opposed in principle in any shape or form to classification nor are they opposed to compulsory classification. What they are worried about, Si r, is the fact that at the moment they fall under so many different controls. At this very moment a classification system is in the process of being evolved. The hotels have not yet received any information regarding that system but it is being worked out at this very moment. Within a month or two it is hoped that system will be announced. So you will have one system of classification under the Minister of Justice—the system of classification imposed by the National Liquor Board. The Minister now also takes power to classify under this Bill, under the Tourist Corporation. In a short time we hope to have the report of the Hotel Commission. That again deals with hotels and there will be recommendations. I hope one of those recommendations will be the establishment of a statutory body to deal with accommodation establishments. So you will have a third system of control there. I believe it would be better if the hon. the Minister were to drop this power he is taking until such time as he sorted out with the industry, with the Department of Justice, and after he has received the report of the Hotel Commission, exactly what line he is going to take. He is unable to say now, he cannot say now, what approach he is going to take to this question. He himself has stated that he is waiting for the report. He has stated he will not use this power until he has had that report. We all know the situation, Mr. Speaker. Once a power is taken and handed over to an organization or to a Department it is most unlikely that the temptation to use that power will be resisted. Why not wait and do the thing properly when we have all the information before us? Do it with the support of the people who are mostly concerned and the people who are going to fall under it rather than do it now with a feeling of worry and concern and a feeling of “this is being forced on us; we are not happy about it”. If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw it I hope he will make a very clear statement of exactly what he is going to do about this, how he is going to apply it. Again I appeal to him, as I have done before, to give an assurance that in any system of classification the Federated Hotel Association which represents all licensed hotels, and if unlicensed hotels are to be classified, their federation, will be represented directly on the body which deals with this classification. They are the people who have the knowledge and the experience. It would be unreasonable and it would not be a sensible policy to eliminate them from the body which is to classify them. So I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with that specifically in his reply.

I would also like to ask the Minister to give us the assurance that in his encouragement of hotels he will not only look to the new luxury hotels but will bear in mind existing hotels which have borne the burden of providing facilities over the years. There is a fear that in our enthusiasm to assist modern, international, luxury hotels we are going to ignore those Who, despite all the difficulties, have provided as best they could the best services they were able to supply. There is, as I say, the concern that they be forgotten in the new enthusiasm for tourism. Existing hotels have a big part to play. Admittedly, and essentially there must be new and luxury establishments. I agree with those hon. members who dealt with this that they must be available to give coverage to South Africa. But they must come from private enterprise with the support and the assistance of the Minister and the Government. That is the only way in which we can have a satisfactory system.

In regard to the other problems, all of them are problems which are known to the Minister. They are, shall I say, of a detailed nature and I believe not germane to a general discussion such as this, which is a discussion on the principle of this measure. I am confident that the Minister will find that all those to whom he turns for assistance will give it to him. We therefore support this measure. We launch the Minister on this road of responsibility for tourism with that one reservation in regard to classification. We wish him luck in making an outstanding job of our tourist trade so that South Africa may become the holiday centre of the world.

It is a great pity that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), perhaps because he could not properly understand and follow the speech of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze), spoilt a good speech by ridiculing the speech of the hon. member for Gordonia. It is a pity that although the hon. member for Gordonia gave us a wonderful picture of what the tourists in South Africa can see and also gave the world a superb portrait of all that South Africa has to offer, the hon. member for Durban (Point) could only poke fun at his speech. I think it is a pity that he did so. I also think that the hon. member for Gordonia has done South Africa a service by pointing out that, particularly as far as the tourists travelling through the platteland are concerned, we shall have to take steps ether to remove or renovate the unsightly houses, non-White and often White houses, which are often to be seen along our public highways. Unfortunately, it is true that as a result of the way in which our national roads have been planned, small pieces of land are often left over along those roads and numbers of people on the platteland have made use of those small pieces of land to accommodate Bantu, and this accommodation is sometimes not particularly attractive. I think that it was quite right of the hon. member for Gordonia to refer to that aspect.

When one considers the request of the United Party that the hon. the Minister should not have the power to register private hotels, hotels and boarding houses, one must have recourse to the original Act and its aims which are as follows—

The original Act refers to accommodation and that accommodation must be such that it will be an advertisement for South Africa. Is there any reason for saying that because an inquiry is in progress and because the Department of Justice has a registration scheme in terms of the Liquor Act, that the hon. the Minister should not have this power? If the hon. the Minister does not have this power and the Department of Justice or any other body sets a norm in terms of which registration must take place, the hon. the Minister will then, in any event, have to be given powers in terms of this Act in order to give consideration, on registration, to the norm that has been set. That is why I think that the hon. the Minister must go ahead with the registration. He must not leave this provision out of the Bill. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point). He gave us a description of what is being done in Durban. It may perhaps be because he only sees the sea front at Durban that he has given us a city-dweller’s interpretation of the position and that he was not able to understand what the hon. member for Gordonia said here. I agree that the Durban sea front is worthwhile seeing; it is as good as any Riviera in the world; it is just as good as anything that France can offer. The hon. member for Gordonia told us about just as many sights worth seeing but for a special sort of tourist.

In not only congratulating but also giving our support to this hon. Minister who is at the head of this new industry in South Africa, we must, without repeating what was said here by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) or what was said by other hon. members in regard to the importance of tourism, consider two examples of what tourism can mean to a country. I want to take Spain as an example. Last year Spain had a tourist turnover of $450,000,000. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the increase in the number of tourists to Spain, the sugar consumption in that country trebled in comparison with the consumption in previous years? It may perhaps be because the rich Americans have had their fill of the luxuries of Europe that they are now going to Spain, which is a poor country. An American told me the other day that this is true; they are now going to Spain but he also said: “You must remember that when an American visits Spain, he still wants his candy and his coke.” In other words, Spain must now start producing those items. This has a chain reaction on production, on trade, on development and on turnover. This is one example. I am not going to take up the time of the House any further in this regard. I think that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) sketched the position very clearly by the use of figures and statistics to prove how tourism can be valuable to a country. If we look at the Annual Report of the South African Tourist Corporation, we find that they anticipate that four times the number of tourists will come to our country in 1975 as was the case in 1960. I want to say immediately that this expectation will only be realized if two conditions are complied with. Everything depends on these two conditions. In the first place, we must have satisfied visitors and this Bill seeks to ensure that those visitors will be satisfied by making provision for the registration of hotels and boarding houses in order to ensure that the norm is maintained. In the second place, we have to use imaginative advertising, but our advertising must also be true advertising. The hon. member for Gordonia put it very well indeed. He said that our attractions must be attractions with a difference. I want to mention an attraction which is different, an attraction which I saw myself the other day. It was while I was visiting the K.W.V. I found that the K.W.V. have a very competent guide. There were also at least ten foreign tourists there at the time and the guide showed them in a very capable manner everything that is being done there, which is different to what is being done at any other place that one can visit. The same holds good for Rembrandt. In other words, it must be something different. I want to return now to the question of having satisfied visitors. In the first place, the hotels must be satisfactory. That is why this Clause 1s so essential. I want to mention an example to the House. A short while ago I was travelling on the national road and I came upon a wonderful new hotel, a brand new hotel which was only completed three years ago. We could have had a meal at a few other places earlier on but I said to my guests: “No, let us eat at that new hotel.” When we arrived there for a meal, they did not even have a menu. When I asked the waiter what we could have to eat, he said: “Only cold meats.” I then said: “Bring us some cold meat.” He then replied: “Sorry, sir, to-day the cold meats are still hot.” That is the kind of hotel which one sometimes comes across along our national roads and that is the kind of hotel which harms our tourist industry. We must not allow this to happen and by means of this registration provision we can try to rectify the matter so that the necessary supervision will be exercised.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to another matter and I want to ask him to approach the hon. the Minister of the Interior for assistance in this connection. If we want satisfied visitors we must ensure that when a visitor arrives in our country ether by air or by ship, he does not have to answer a large number of questions or fill in a large number of documents, documents which sometimes he cannot even understand. If the hon. the Minister and the corporation compare our documents here with the tourist documents that have to be completed in the rest of the world, they will find that the questions asked in other countries are brief. People visiting South Africa have to fill in a number of documents. I think that this matter should be investigated so that the whole procedure can be facilitated and simplified and so that questions which may possibly be wrongly interpreted by visitors can be avoided. This is something we must do in order to have satisfied tourists. At the same time I want to say that we must praise the way in which the departments deal with these visitors. I know that we are fortunate in that the officials in these departments show the necessary goodwill when tourists approach them with these difficult questionnaires. This goodwill is something that should be encouraged. A satisfied tourist is a tourist who will return to his own country and influence other people to come to this country. In order to have satisfied tourists, we must ensure that our transport facilities are of the highest standard. The hon. member for Gordonia pointed out that if a tourist comes to this country and he has to drive for miles along a bumpy road, without the necessary accommodation being available along the way, without his being able to enjoy the necessary facilities along the way, then he does not feel satisfied. Fortunately, South Africa’s transport facilities are among the best in the world. Our airways are second to none. One can go to any place in Europe but one will find that South African Airways are head and shoulders above all the others both in regard to the comforts enjoyed on the flight and also in regard to the courtesy shown and the service rendered by the air hostesses and stewards. I can also mention another example. Our Blue Train service or the express service between Johannesburg and Durban need not stand back for any train service in the world. These are two factors which encourage and assist tourism. I wanted to discuss another matter and that is the opportunities that we have for using our imagination which the hon. member for Gordonia described so succinctly as opportunities with a difference. He mentioned the natural beauty of the north-west; he told us what could be done and then he went on to sneak about the roads. Let us discuss the Garden Route. I am sure that there are few routes of this kind in the world. It is a route which enables a tourist to see everything at his ease. We not only have the Cango Caves, the majestic Meiringspoort, a ride on an ostrich at Oudtshoorn, or the Wilderness, but we have a comprehensive variety of attractions on this one tour which it will be difficult to equal in any other part of the world. It is wonderful to see all these things. The hon. the Minister and his Department must also have liaison with the Orange River Development Board. We have the Orange River scheme, a scheme costing R500,000,000 which will take some time to complete. Fortunately, the Government were wise enough to set up the Orange River Development Board in order to ensure right from the start the scientific organization of tourism in regard to the sights worth seeing and the question of fishing and hotel accommodation. In a similar connection I want to mention the Pongola poort Dam, a dam which will be 287 feet high and which will serve the Bushveld which has a sub-tropical climate. It will be one of the finest schemes in the world but here we must mention the bumpy road to which the hon. member for Gordonia referred. The time has come when we should have a Garden Route from Durban to northern Zululand, the only one of its kind, which will bypass the majestic Lebombo Mountains, which will run from the Kruger National Park right through Swaziland and northern Zululand, following the course of the river to the mountains until we come to the dam. We must do this to attract tourists to the area. It will be a wonderful route.

I also want to mention a few ideas in this connection. This Bill makes provision not only for consultation with Administrators but also that the Administrators of the provinces can spend money on tourism and that these financial provisions will be included in the Financial Relations Act.

Mention has been made of our national parks. A short while ago we read in the newspapers that certain Italian visitors were dissatisfied with St. Lucia. They were not very happy about what happened there. We have the Hluhluwe Game Reserve in Natal where one can take photographs of the white rhino at a distance of about 10 or 12 yards. One has to be a little more careful in photographing the black rhino because he will not hesitate to charge and overturn a car. When we consider these things we know that here we have a game reserve second to none; where in one or two days one can see every type of buck, including the Nyala which cannot be seen in any other part of the world except at Punda Malia; where one can see rhino’s which are not found anywhere in the rest of the world. These are all sights that the world wants to see. A short distance away from this Reserve we have the Black Umfolozi and the White Umfolozi, the home of the rhino and just a short distance further on we have the St. Lucia Lake and False Bay. The St. Lucia Lake is a wild bird sanctuary without equal in the world. Here one can see thousands of flamingos and when they all take flight their white and pink feathers are a sight really worth seeing. The question immediately arises as to whether provincial administrations are aware of the service which they can perform for South Africa by improving these places in such a way as to increase the prestige of our country. Or are these simply the step-children of the provincial council? Has the time not come for the Tourist Corporation in co-operation, perhaps with the National Parks Board, to have a more coordinated inquiry made in order to make these necessary facilities and this accommodation, these attractions available in such a way as to be world attractions, because they are the only ones of their kind in the world?

I want to discuss another idea in this connection. I know of a young organization which has just been established and which wants to register all the farmers in South Africa, who have game on their farms, for tourist purposes. Just think of it! In earlier years in Britain the hunters rode out to hunt the fox, in hunting-pink. I see that there is now a very widespread organization in Britain which is trying to discourage hunting, even to the extent of using helicopters, by drawing the hounds off the scent simply because these people say that it is a cruel sport. But hunting is one of the oldest sports in which man has always been interested, whether he has been an uncivilized Bushman armed with is bow and poisoned arrows, a hunter with a bow and steel-tipped arrows and later with a gun, or merely a person with a camera; hunting is one of the sports which has always had a great attraction for numbers of people. We must also realize that as a result of developments in Africa, because the White man is leaving Africa, the game in Africa will within the next few years become totally extinct; there will be no more game in Africa. No longer will the enthusiastic followers of the sport of hunting have the opportunity of enjoying this sport in an organized way not simply for the sake of killing. If all the farmers in South Africa who have herds of game on their farms, whether they are springbuck, or blesbuck or other kinds of buck, can be registered …

When business was suspended I was mentioning briefly the different kinds of sport which can be pursued in South Africa, including the hunting of game. Africa is a declining hunting ground for hunters who are still keen followers of this sport throughout the world. Here in South Africa we can still give them an opportunity to practise this sport in an organized fashion. Those farmers will show the tourists true South African hospitality. Not only will they do this, but every farm can become a tourist centre, organized and co-ordinated in the proper way—for a reasonable consideration.

They cannot make biltong.

In my own constituency, for example, I know of eight such farmers who have wonderful herds of buck and who would be only too pleased to do something of this nature in order in this way to be able to perform a service to South Africa and to tourism.

I want to mention another example of a different kind of diversion which we have to offer here and which the rest of the world cannot offer on the same scale. I think of angling—for example, in False Bay. We noticed in the newspapers yesterday that a new world record has been set up in regard to the number of tuna caught in any one day. The old record was broken during the competition which we have just had. In earlier years we thought that we would have to go to far distant countries in order to catch tuna and marlin but where can we find more of an angler’s paradise throughout the whole world than here in False Bay? Where else can be caught the variety of fish that we have here? Name another country whose Prime Minister has caught as large a tuna as the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa has caught! This is only one example of what we can offer to the world. And while I am discussing this matter, let me mention the trout that we have here in South Africa. I think of a place like Wakkerstroom in my own constituency where some of the finest trout imaginable can be caught. This is a sport followed by many people, particularly because the rest of Africa is no longer able to provide the services in this regard which were provided previously. Let me put it in this way: When a tourist arrives at Cape Town by ship early in the morning he sees Table Mountain thrusting majestically into the sky—the view on arrival in Cape Town harbour is one of the finest in the world—with the sun rising behind it. When that tourist disembarks at Cape Town, he boards one of the luxury buses of the Railways’ Road Motor Services which is fitted out for tourists. That tourist is driven along the Garden Route and through the Transkei where he can see what is being done there and is then driven down to Durban. He is taken along the North coast and is able to compare the development in the Transkei with the position just across our borders in Swaziland, a country which is becoming a desert. All this gives him a picture of South Africa and of what is being done here. He can see the contrast between what is being done here and what is being done just across our borders and at the same time have a good holiday.

There is another aspect which we must consider in this connection. This new industry must be developed as swiftly as possible. The advantages to be gained from tourism are not only the material turnover which hon. members have mentioned; they are not only the financial turnover, the goods that can be sold. If we want the rest of the world to understand South Africa and to see South Africa in its correct perspective, then to my mind the most important factor is that tourists who return to their own countries after visiting South Africa must return there, firstly, as satisfied people who have been given what they expected in regard to relaxation, travelling facilities, accommodation and so forth. We must also have people who will return to their country more informed about South Africa— in regard to the composition of our population, in regard to our country which is one of the most contented countries to-day, a country which has experienced phenomenal progress in recent times. We want informed people to visit this country so that they can come and see our country for themselves, a country which has a variety of population groups and racial groups, a country in which peace, love and progress prevails, other than is the case, for example, in Cyprus, or is the case in certain of the Southern States of America or in countries in Africa from which the White man has departed. South Africa can pluck these wonderful fruits of tourism and that is why it is a good thing that the hon. the Minister of Tourism is also the hon. the Minister of Information because putting South Africa in her correct perspective to the world is the best way to advertise her. The best way is not by advertising, by brochures, by publications nor by means of professional information. When the tourists who come to this country return to their homelands, they must be our ambassadors. The tourists who come to this country must return home so satisfied and so well informed that they will be able to put South Africa in the correct perspective. Each one of those tourists has his circle of influence, to a lesser or greater extent. Some of these tourists will go home and address various meetings, ether on the occasion of Rotary Club lunches or otherwise. They will address various groups of people. If we can develop our tourist industry in such a way as to attract not thousands but millions of tourists, and these people return home to their own countries and put South Africa in her correct perspective, then the task of the hon. the Minister of Information will be made so much easier, as will the task of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs at UNO and other places where people are wrongly conditioned. These will be the good fruits which we shall pluck as a result of the development of our tourist industry in the correct way and on the correct basis. We hone that what the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr, Raw) said will not merely be lip-service—he gave the hon. the Minister of Tourism his blessing, promised him his support and said that the United Party would assist him in his task in every way. We hope that in this connection the United Party are not merely indulging in paying slip-service but that they will be truly South African and serve South Africa in this way so that we will be able to enjoy the good results of their actions.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with one or two points in the speech of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, I hope you will permit me to say a few words about the speech made to-day by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze). We are all inclined in this House to take poetic licence to deviate from the subject under discussion. If we were to award an Oscar for the best speech made here, I would immediately award him an Oscar for his speech. He sits in his backbench and I sit in mine; sometimes we speak and in a recent editorial the Cape Times referred to what it called “backbench oratory”. I can only say that if his speech this morning is “backbench oratory”, then I say with the Duke Orsino: “Give me excess of it …” I am sure my colleagues on this side enjoyed his speech as much as I did, and I am only sorry that at the time he spoke on this very interesting and-important subject of tourism, there were no more than ten of his own colleagues to hear that fine speech. It was their loss, but our gain.

Dealing with the point made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) when he referred to the scenic attractions of South Africa, and to hunting and fishing, I realize that those are very important in the context of tourism, but when he dilates on those subjects he is doing no more than to convince us in this Chamber that we have some really wonderful material to attract tourists to South Africa. The question arises —why is it that we have failed up to now to obtain from the outside world an aggregate of tourists comparable with those attractions? This is the subject which I think should be germane to our discussion of this Bill. I must say that when he referred in such glowing terms to the angling in False Bay (without the permission of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay)), and when he referred to the beauty of Cape Town, I wondered whether he was not “angling” for a seat in the Cape Peninsula, by doing such a good job of propaganda for the Peninsula, or whether he was merely trying to keep Parliament here! But the important point is that we have insufficient amenities to add to the natural attractions which would justify us in laying claim to a much greater portion of world tourism than we get to-day, and I propose to deal with some of the deficiencies a little later on.

Let me come immediately to one of the very obvious deficiencies in the pattern of tourist amenities in South Africa, and that is, of course, the lack of a sufficient number of good hotels, particularly in some of the laster cities of South Africa. It is common knowledge that in the recent past, as the result possibly of the announcement that the largest hotel in Johannesburg, if not in South Africa, was to be demolished, a consortium was formed of two companies, the Anglo-American Corporation and the South African Breweries, to acquire a very large and valuable site more or less in the centre of Johannesburg, and they announced their intention of building what the Minister has called an international or prestige type of hotel. As the result of that they embarked on a really magnificent project. It was made clear at the time that in order to complete that project they would require some assistance from the Government. I am not saying that the Government made it clear that it would give that assistance, but it does appear that in those circles, in the Government, some consideration was given to a request, to put it at its lowest, that the Government should assist this consortium to build a first-class international type of hotel which would attract tourists to South Africa and which would enable us in Johannesburg to accommodate them, since Jan Smuts Airport is the largest port of entry of international tourists to South Africa. A Press statement appeared last week to the effect that the persons responsible for this: project, having approached the Minister for assistance, found that they could not obtain an answer from him or from the Government, as the result of which I put a question to the Minister this morning, quite fortuitously, and the question and the answer ran as follows: I asked whether he had been approached for Government assistance to build an “international” hotel. The Minister answered “Yes”. Then I asked (a) on what date and (b) on behalf of which companies or persons was the approach made, and (c) what was the nature of the representations, and (d) what was the date of his reply. To all that, as well as to the additional question, whether any assistance was promised, and if so, what assistance, the Minister replied that discussions and negotiations were proceeding in respect of three international prestige hotels to be erected in Johannesburg, and as soon as finality has been reached a full statement will be issued. Now I put it to the Minister with respect, that it was known 16 months ago that the one hotel, which—perhaps with some doubt in the minds of us who knew it—could lay claim to being an international or prestige type of hotel in Johannesburg, was to be demolished, and I say that the Minister cannot be serious when he considers that this is an answer, not to me but to those interests which seek to invest a very substantial amount of their capital in the building of one hotel, let alone three. It is perfectly obvious that even if the Minister were to telephone these people in Johannesburg this afternoon and say that the Government will give the following assistance, and even if it is a generous offer of assistance and they accept it immediately, and they then proceed at the maximum speed to carry out their plans, it will take three years or more before a single bedroom in that hotel would be available to any tourist. In other words, it amounts to this: that for the foreseeable future Johannesburg, which in recent years has suffered from a serious dearth of hotel accommodation, and particularly good accommodation, will still have to wait three to five years, even if the Minister were heard to say this afternoon that the Government will assist the entrepreneurs. Now I put it to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom: What on earth is the use of talking about the attractions of South Africa? Most of us as South Africans know them, but what is the use of talking about these attractions to people in the outside world when we well know that if they were to arrive in Johannesburg to-day, there is not an hotel which could take them in for the might? I say this to-day, and this is after the period of the Rand Easter Show, which is a very popular season in Johannesburg—the Minister was there himself to open one or two pavilions—and it is a time when the city has always been overcrowded with visitors who are prepared to pay reasonable tariffs for good accommodation, and we have had this problem for years as to where to accommodate people. The old Carlton Hotel to-day looks like something out of the pre-historic past; it is half demolished, and what is there to take its place? At this stage there is not even a plan! I would like in due course to get a reply from the Minister to-day, and I would like him to give us some more concrete evidence of the intention of the Government to assist the tourist industry by assisting those who are prepared to hazard very substantial amounts of capital in the erection of hotels where they are necessary. I want to put it to the Minister this way as I understand the position, the Government is under no obligation to help anybody who comes to it and says he wants to erect an hotel providing they give him some help, but clearly, with the establishment of the Ministry of Tourism, and even more clearly with the accession to power over Satour by the Minister himself, the Government owes an obligation to tourism as an industry to exert itself to provide the hotel accommodation where it is needed, and it does not exert itself by giving the kind of answer which the Minister gave this morning, that discussions and negotiations are proceeding in respect of three hotels. In Johannesburg we would be very happy to know that finality had been reached in regard to one hotel, rather than a continuity ad nauseam of discussions in regard to three hotels. We do not ask for a feast of these hotels, but at present there is a famine, and I want to tell the Minister that last year when I went to the United States I took the trouble to have a very fine perspective plan drawn up for a 23-storey hotel in Johannesburg, on a very central site there, but not the one which this consortium has bought. I have no commercial interest in the matter, nor did I have at the time. But I negotiated at the time, because I felt that this was an important matter to the city of Johannesburg and to South Africa, with two very large hotel corporations in America. I am prepared to give the Minister their names and the details of the discussions, privately. In fact, one of those corporations is involved in one of the three schemes to build an international hotel in Johannesburg, to which the Minister referred in his reply. But the question they immediately asked was whether the Government would provide any assistance for this project. They asked: Assuming we invest $5,000,000 in building an hotel in Johannesburg, what assistance will we get from the Government? And if this is the kind of answer the Minister were to give them, then the question of hotel accommodation will go no further than it is this afternoon, because it is common cause that where those large corporations in America, whether it is the Pan-American Corporation, the Hilton Hotels Corporation or the International Hotels Corporation—whenever they want to build an hotel in a foreign country it is usually on the basis that they obtain substantial concessions from the Government of the country in which they erect the hotel. In a place like Monrovia in Liberia there is a magnificent 20-storey hotel, standing on a crag, air-conditioned, which was erected by one of these American hotel corporations, but one of their board members said to me that they would never have dreamt of putting up an hotel of that nature in Monrovia of all places unless the Government had come to them and said: We need an hotel, and nobody here is prepared to build it because it is not an economic proposition; we have not the population but must draw people from overseas, and we will therefore give you X million dollars, or we will give you a tax-free period of ten years, or we will provide you with a loan for a period of years at a sub-economic rate of interest, or we will waive all assessment rates and local taxes. That is the kind of deal these people are interested in, because if they merely want to build hotels I can assure the Minister there is plenty of scope for them to build hotels in their own country—but they go into the foreign field because some Government in that area has induced them to do so. Unless and until the Minister, whether through Satour or his own Department, is prepared to follow that policy and is prepared to persuade the Cabinet that he must give a real inducement to those who are prepared to venture a tremendous amount of capital over a long period in a very uncertain kind of business venture, as an hotel must be, I fear that for the foreseeable future, which may be from three to ten years, we will still be haggling over this question of tourism, and we will still not be in a position to attract people even to the largest city in South Africa, Johannesburg.

Incidentally, I cannot claim for Johannesburg the scenic attractions that have been claimed for Gordonia or the Peninsula or Wakkerstroom, but Johannesburg is after all the only metropolis in South Africa. It is the only city of consequence as world cities go. I know there will be protests from those who represent Cape Town and other cities …

You certainly cannot beat Cape Town.

I have no desire to beat Cape Town. What I said in all seriousness was that Johannesburg is at present the only metropolis in South Africa, a city which by world standards has a metropolitan aspect. Cape Town is very beautiful, but I am reminded of the man who was induced to attend a concert for the first time in his life and he heard the famous pianist Rubinstein, and afterwards his friend asked him what he thought of it, he said: Take away his piano, and what has this man got? I say of Cape Town: Take away the mountain and the Sea, and what have they got? I hope that the Minister will reply to this very important question of the provision of hotels, and I do not want to spread it over the whole area of South Africa. I cannot see in all conscience how any Government can be expected to embark on the venture of ether itself building or assisting in the building of hotels in every large town in South Africa. But surely when it comes to the largest city and the only point of entry by air for international visitors, something must be done and done very quickly, or else we are simply wasting breath talking about the matter. In general, where hotels are concerned I share the reservations of my colleagues on this side in regard to the wisdom of the Minister taking the powers he is taking in this Bill to classify all hotels, whether or not their owners have requested such classification. On the other hand, I must say in all fairness that, basically, the idea of classifying hotels is a sound one, because the tourist from overseas will want the same kind of information about South Africa as he gets about other countries. He can go to a travel agent, and if he wants to go to Italy he can get a book which all big travel agencies possess, and certainly all big air-lines—I am thinking here of one called “New Horizons” issued by Pan-American Airways—in which virtually every hotel worth staying in in the country is listed and they are grade, five star, four star, three star, etc. Therefore if the visitor contemplates his trip to that country and he knows that he is being offered accommodation in a city like Florence, at a three-star hotel which has a tariff of so much a day, he has some idea of what to expect when he gets there. But in the case of South Africa, until such time as there is classification, which should not be undertaken as lightly as this Bill indicates, the foreign visitor can only take the word of the travel agent for it, and right now, if someone were talking to one of the travel agents, e.g. in London, and were to ask where he could stay in Johannesburg, he would be given a list of probably six good hotels, but in not one of those cases is there anything to indicate to the tourist whether he will get value for his money or the kind of accommodation he wants, because there is no grading. Let us take the hotels in the False Bay area. There are many hotels there, but because of the fact that there is a short season you have the position where probably two hotels rank, at least in their own estimation, as first-class hotels. And I promise you, Sir, that if you were to go into one of the bedrooms in either of those two hotels, you would find those old wooden cupboards made of boxwood, veneered over, those old wooden dressing-tables, and when you look at the plumbing you almost instinctively look around for that wrought-iron wash-basin stand with a marble top, complete with procelain basin. That is the kind of antiquity which passes for hotel accommodation in some parts of South Africa. [Interjection.] I wish some Americans would come to the False Bay Coast and buy up all the furniture in some of those hotels and take them back as antiques, but more than likely the few who would come here would go back and say, as I have heard at least five tell me during the last six months in the U.S.A.: We went to Cape Town and it is a beautiful city, and we went out to False Bay, which was also magnificent, but the hotels were the bitter end! And then they described an hotel which I know so well.

How do you suggest improving it?

I have been talking about it for ten minutes already. Did you not listen?

Now I want to deal briefly with one or two other points which arise largely out of the report of Satour for 1962-3. There is reference to the activities of that corporation on the North American Continent. There are two offices of Satour in the U.S.A., one in New York and one in Los Angeles, which was opened about 18 months ago. I know both those offices and I know both the gentlemen who manage them, and may I say, do so very well. May I tell the Minister that I spent some considerable time with the manager of the Los Angeles office of Satour in order to find out how he would set about attracting American tourists, particularly from the West Coast, to come to South Africa. He realizes the importance of this perhaps better than we do, because he is having an uphill struggle. According to this report, we had a total of 24,241 inquiries in the North American offices during the year, and that produced 6,000 visitors, including those from Canada. Certain figures were used by the Minister in his second-reading speech—I want to put it to him this way. The United States has a population of 190,000,000. In the case of a country as large as that, according to the figures revealed in regard to the inquiries in other countries, the number of inquiries in the U.S.A. in connection with visits to S.A. should have been multiplied by 600, and we should have had 600,000 inquiries from America, and instead of having only 6,000 visitors the potential number of visitors from the U.S.A. should have been 150,000—but we only got 6,000! The Minister will have to go into this very carefully and ask himself why it is that we can only induce 6,000 people to come here from America. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Otto) referred to it in another way. He said that every year, according to the statistics, there were 8,000,000 people leaving the U.S.A. to tour foreign countries—and what did we get out of the 8,000,000 in 1962? Only 6,000. There must be some reason for that. I believe that the Minister will find, when he has established the reason, that he can do something about it in two aspects, the first case being that there must be a more intensified selling campaign in the U.S.A. itself. By that I mean that whereas there are only two offices now at each end of the country, in New York and Los Angeles on the West Coast, the Minister might well consider establishing at least one additional office in Chicago, which is very centrally situated and which serves a very large and rich area, the Middle West. I think an office there would do some good, because you can walk down the street where most of the tourist and travel agencies are, South Michigan Boulevard, and you will not see a poster advertising South Africa. You will see posters galore in every agency saying: “Come to Bali”, or “Go to Hong-Kong”, but they never say, “Come to South Africa” because they just are not there! So I suggest, first of all, that in that respect the Minister can do something and he can do it quickly, and I hope he will be allowed to spend the money required to do so.

In regard to the other aspect where he can do something, in my opinion, it is the provision of amenities where they do not exist at present, and the case of Johannesburg and its lack of hotel accommodation is purely an example, and, of course the worst example. But until such time as it is possible to establish new and more modern and more attractive amenities, I hope the Minister and his Department will use every endeavour to tune up, as it were, the existing amenities and make them more attractive to overseas visitors, and to advertise them in such a way as to make the necessary impact, as it is called in the advertising world, on the 8,000,000 potential tourists from the U.S.A. who provide the international tourist industry all over the world with many more tourists than the rest of the world put together. That is where we should concentrate, in a country which has the population and which has a high standard of living, and where a substantial proportion of the people want to travel, while we are getting, pro rata, the smallest trickle of tourists from the U.S.A. of any country in the world.

There are two other aspects which the Minister will have to deal with, and which I am afraid he will find difficult to tackle. The one is the remoteness of South Africa, as most people overseas see it, from their homes. This is something which can only be broken down by the co-operation of the public communications media such as the newspapers, television, etc., which may be prepared, if they are friendly and well disposed, to stress the fact that it is not nearly as far as most people think from California to Gordonia, that you can get into a jet plane and within 36 hours you are there, etc. This is not being done to any extent at all, and you can speak to most people in America and they seem to think that South Africa is further from their country than the moon. We have to stress that in our propaganda.

The final point I wish to make is this. [Interjections.] That is, that there is a further obstacle to attracting tourists to South Africa. The fact is that they generally have the idea that we are in a state of public disorder here, that there is political instability, and that they may well have to go in fear of their lives. This is not my opinion. The report of Satour says in the paragraph headed “Appreciation”—

And this to me is the understatement of the year, from my own knowledge—

How the Minister is going to set about curing that ill, and eliminating that obstacle to tourism, I do not know. If I were to think aloud, I would say that one of the quickest ways of eliminating that obstacle is for the Government to resign, but I do not wish to bring politics into this discussion. However, the fact is that there is a general feeling outside South Africa that conditions in this country are such that a tourist may find himself in a “jam” and may not be able to move freely, or to go back when he wants to. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to devise a more subtle and therefore a more efficient way of putting over the case for South Africa as a tourist attraction, even if he cannot do it from the political point of view, by indicating that visitors to South Africa have no reason to fear the so-called uncertainty that exists in the country. This uncertainty is something which concerns us in South Africa, but it need not concern the tourist, and I hope therefore that in implementing the Bill before us to-day the Minister will have regard to the fact that while we support this Bill, and support him in his endeavours to increase the quantum of tourism from overseas to South Africa, there are certain very positive and definite steps he will have to take without any further ado, if he means business.

Sir, one of the most pleasant days that one can spend in this Parliament is when everybody suffers from political amnesia, when we can forget politics and confine ourselves to the beauty of our country and to the attractions which it offers to the world. To-day we have such a day, when we should all try not to be parochial in our outlook; we should not try to boost one section of our country against the other because the whole of South Africa is a beautiful country. Each part of South Africa offers a different kind of beauty and a different kind of attraction to the world. We do not have to sell the beauty of South Africa to the world. What we have to do is to bring the people here to see this wonderful country.

Sir, I do not want to discuss the question of hotels; the hon. the Minister has heard all about it. I think the hon. the Minister and the Government are fully conscious of that aspect, but what I do believe is that having missed the bus in the past we must try to see what we can do for the future. Just think what it would have meant for South Africa if the Olympic Games could have been held in South Africa one year. Not only would South Africa have been advertised but we would have had thousands upon thousands of visitors who would have left this country as agents to advertise the beauty of South Africa. Just think how wonderful it would have been if South Africa could have had a World Fair here.

From New York.

The World Fair has been held in other countries. While smaller countries like Finland and other countries have been catching the very big tunny, from the tourist point of view, to use fishing parlance, South Africa has been catching little sardines because we have missed the bus and there is no likelihood now of ever getting the Olympic Games or the World Fair here. How then can we attract visitors? Let me tell the hon. the Minister that many of us on this side as well as on that side have travelled the world, and we are very fortunate in having been able to do so. We all have our own little stories to tell overseas, to the advantage of South Africa. For instance, when I had the privilege of going through Cape Kennedy (then Cape Canaveral), a colonel of the American army sat in the same car with me; he told me that he had been to South Africa three times and that he could not wait to come for the fourth time because he thinks this is such a wonderful country. Sir, we must try to bring these people to South Africa. We have certain factors here that are very difficult. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) mentioned one or two of them. One is the distance of South Africa from the source of tourism. The hon. the Minister can take it from me that there are thousands and thousands of Americans who would like to come here but they have not been able to spend the time nor can many of them afford the price. I do think that we should take a leaf out of the book of certain organizations who have made travel cheap. What is wrong with the South African Government? Why cannot they provide subsidies to help to bring people here? Why cannot they subsidize air fares and boat fares to bring the people here? If it does cost you a certain amount of money to bring them here, that investment will pay very rich dividends. Apart from the money that those people will spend here, they will leave this country as ambassadors who will advertise this country. Sir, for months and months boats have been leaving South Africa for Brazil and other countries, packed with tourists from South Africa. Why? Because they could afford to travel. When I went to South America I found that there were thousands of tourists who wanted to come to South Africa, but they all say that it is too expensive. Well, if it is too expensive we in South Africa must make it possible for them to come here by way of Government subsidies., How it is going to be done I do not know, but we have our South African Airways; there are ships …

Max Wilson’s tours.

No advertising allowed! Seriously, however, there is that organization which could be approached.? There are large numbers of people who want to come to South Africa. As I have said before, it is not necessary to sell South Africa’s scenic attractions to the world; they are well known. The Kruger Park is well known throughout America and people want to come and see it, but you cannot expect them to come to this country if they cannot afford the time or the money. I repeat that we can make it possible for them to come here by means of Government subsidies. Sir, on the boat on which I travelled home from South America I found a wonderful little book, “South Africa” and when I saw it I was very proud; I thought to myself: The Minister of Tourism and Information has been right on the ball, as he used to be in his old Springbok days, chasing the ball and scoring a try for South Africa.

He is off-side now.

He was not only off-side; he was not even in the game, because this book is not issued by the Minister. It is a wonderful little book advertising South Africa but it is issued by the Royal Inter-Ocean Lines.

Isn’t that very clever? Is it not clever if we can get them to issue and distribute such a book?

Sir, only a brain like the Ministers could think of such a small thing! Seriously, Sir, is the Minister not ashamed of himself that he leaves it to another organization to print such a wonderful book about South Africa? Should not all the steamships that go from South Africa to other parts of the world carry books issued by the tourist organization of South Africa? Sir, these books were snapped up by the people and avidly read; they were most interested. I was happy to be of assistance to many Americans who did not stay on in South Africa but who remained on the boat and continued their tour. The Minister should take some of us in business with him. Some of us have brains and we can tell him how to set about things. South Africa is far behind other countries as far as advertising is concerned. The Minister must not say “no” when I say that we should issue these books; he must not make a joke of the fact that another company found it necessary to advertise South Africa. Sir, in the four months that I was in Florida, in the United States, I looked particularly for just a small bit of evidence of advertisements of South Africa and of its beauty. I looked in vain; I found nothing at all. I do not know where our money goes: the Minister will probably tell us. When I spoke to him privately he gave me a certain answer which he would probably give to the House; I do not want to tell the House what he told me in the course of a private chat. As I say, I saw nothing to advertise South Africa but I saw advertisements from other countries in almost every cinema. I saw wonderful films advertising New Zealand and Australia, issued by the information bureaux of these countries. As far as South Africa is concerned, however, I looked in vain for advertisements of South Africa. Although we have a Minister in the Cabinet who hates the sight of television let me tell the hon. the Minister that if you want to sell South Africa from the tourists point of view, all you have to do is to use the television network in America or in England …

You must not use the word “television”!

Sir, I have spoken about Government subsidies. Let us take the Rhodesian Government and its famous Flame Lily tour which, I believe is subsidized by the Government. Sir, you cannot get a booking on these tours for weeks and months ahead, if you want to go to the Victoria Falls, to the Kariba Dam and to the National Parks of Rhodesia. Thousands and thousands of visitors take advantage of these tours which are subsidized by the Government. I suppose the Minister has been on that tour.

I know it.

It is a very beautiful tour.

You are selling it.

No, I do not have to sell it; it has sold itself to the people because the Government made it possible for it to be sold to the people. Sir, we are in a difficult position; we have to attract people from afar. I am not worried about the question of hotel accommodation. That is a problem which should be easy to solve. What I am worried about is how we should set about things to get the people here, the people who want to come, who have read about us and who know about our national parks and our beautiful scenery. They cannot come here unless the Government makes it possible for them to come here. I say that any money spent on subsidizing tourism would be well spent. Sir, you only have to open a newspaper in America to see advertisements of tours throughout the world. South Africa is very seldom mentioned in those advertisements. Of course, we do have the millionaires coming here once in a while but it is the man in the street who wants to travel whom we should try to persuade to come to this country. Sir, I do not want to talk politics. As I have said, on a day such as this we should suffer from political amnesia, but I do say that with our surplus we can afford to pay a subsidy to bring these people here. Such an investment would pay us over and over again. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be bold enough to take strong steps, to bring tourists to this country, even if he goes so far as to bring a hundred school children from America free to this country, and pays their expences here. He must not bring one or two; he must bring them in batches of 100 or 200 from all over America. Let them come here and see South Africa; those children when they leave here will become our advertising agents. You Cannot make profits if you do not take chances; you cannot have benefit unless you make an investment. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will learn from the experience of many members on this side and on his own side of the House. We should stand together to bring tourists here to see this beautiful country of ours. Finally, I want to express the hope that we will have much more luck with tourism in the future than we have had in the past.

We on this side of the House are quite satisfied with the take-over bid of the Minister of Tourism. Very often take-over bids are relatively simple until you find that what you have taken over gives you a great deal of concern. I think the hon. the Minister, after having listened to this debate to-day, must be feeling very much like the man who has taken over a business and now has to run it, because he has an enormous job to do, and I hope that ether at the end of this debate or perhaps under the Tourist Vote the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some indication as to what his plans are. The heartening aspect of the whole situation is that at long last the Government is apparently going to treat the question of tourism seriously. We presume that when the Government sets up a Department of State in charge of a Minister to deal with a particular problem, they are going to go all out to make that Department work, and we therefore look forward to tourism being given an injection which is going to revitalize it in this country.

Sir, there is not much point in going back and saying what we should have had. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has told the House what the situation is in regard to hotels, for example. But it is no good, as they say on the stock market, jobbing backwards; there is no profit in it. What the hon. the Minister has to do is to take the situation as he finds it to-day and then plan from there onwards.

I think the objectives of any tourist plan are threefold. The first objective is to get tourists to come to the country, but once you have them here it is just as important to keep them here; that is your second objective, and your third objective is to get them to spend as much money as possible here. Tourism is a materialistic business. We realize that there are some other facets which have been dealt with by other speakers to-day, but basically tourism in its real sense is business; get the tourists here, keep them here as long as possible and get them to spend as much as possible. To achieve these objects there are certain pre-requisites and the basic pre-requisite is planning. Tourism, as I have said, is a business and you just cannot create a business. A business needs long-term planning; it needs experts; it needs advice; it needs all those things which are applicable to any normal business venture. Firstly, in order to bring people to a country, it has been found that you have to find out what they want, and once you have found out what they want, then your constant aim should be to give them what they want. Once you know why people want to come to South Africa—and that is something which the hon. the Minister has to find out; as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) pointed out you have to research—once you find out why they want to come here then you start dealing with them from the advertising point of view, from a conditioning point of view, until you have brought them here. I do not think we really know what brings people here. We do not know whether it is our climate, whether it is our Native life, whether it is our Native reserves, whether it is the wide open spaces of Gordonia, whether it is the mountains and seas of Cape Town. We do not know what brings people to this country and that is something that we have to find out. The question of getting people here and the question of cost were dealt with by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). One thing that I did find out in America is that people believe that South Africa is far away. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: I say that South Africa is not far away, nor is it expensive to get to South Africa, because our potential tourists are not in the United States, even if they come from the United States. Our potential tourists are already in Europe. There are tens of thousands of people from the United States of America and from South America who travel to Europe every year; they may go to England or they may go to the Continent; they may come down as /far as Greece, which is almost on our doorstep, seven or eight hours away, and what we have to get across to people is that South Africa is near and that you can get to South Africa cheaply. What happens when you talk to the average travelling American? When you ask him whether he is going abroad next year he says “yes”. When you ask him where he is going to he will say to you that he is going to Italy or Germany. When you ask him why he does not come to South Africa he will tell you that it is too far away. But when you tell him that he can get from Rome to South Africa for £200 or R400 and that he can get here from Rome in a matter of ten hours, he says, “I did not realize that South Africa was so near”, because his point of departure is no longer New York or Los Angeles or Boston or Florida, his point of departure is in Europe; he is halfway here or three-quarters of the way here. That is what we have to get across to the American tourist, that South Africa is literally on his doorstep once he is on the continent of Europe. That, I think, is the major factor which will bring American tourists to this country. The American tourist does not realize that setting out from New York he can first go to London, then to Germany, then to Italy, then to Greece; he can go to Spain and Israel and he can come on to South Africa and when he goes back he can take a different route and visit another four or five countries. There is a fantastic opportunity for a traveller from abroad to see the world, and at little extra fare cost to come to South Africa, because on his way south he has free stop-offs at five or six countries; going home northwards he takes a different route, and in coming to South Africa he can see practically the whole world. That is what we have to get across to the world.

Mention has been made of our tourist offices abroad. Those of us who go abroad and visit these tourists offices are all impressed by the work that is being done there. Sir, tourist offices owned by a Government are all very well but the kernel of tourism is a tourist office owned by the tourists organizations. That is where our second attack has to come. We must make sure that the tourist organizations throughout the world know South Africa. I am glad to see from the reports of Satour that there were visits this year from the agents of overseas tourist organizations, but not enough, because except for the group of 101 brought by Lufthansa and the group of 25 brought by K.L.M., the others are infinitesimal. We know that people who work in tourist agencies are given certain concessions to go overseas once a year or once every two years as the case may be. Those working in the commercial tourist offices in South Africa go overseas to see the places they are going to tell their customers about. We must try to get the tourist offices in America and on the Continent to send their people here to see what is going on here so that they can tell their potential customers about it. Sir, I have travelled a fair amount. When I decide that I am going to visit a country which I have not visited before I am sure the tourist agent is very glad to see the last of me because there are 1,000 questions that I want to ask. I do not know what the conditions are in these countries, off the beaten tourists track of Europe. You want to know about accommodation, about sightseeing, about clothing and 100 other things, and the agent is the only man who can give you that information. We have to encourage these agents as far as we can to come and visit us.

Another thing is that we are moving into the era of the packaged tour, and I hope that the hon. the Minister in consultation with the commercial tourists organizations, will see that the packaged tour is created to this country. Packaged tours range over a very wide field. There is the ordinary packaged tour where people go together to a country because they are afraid to travel alone; they are nervous to travel alone and they want the ease of travelling in a group where everything is done for them and all they have to do is to put their suitcases outside their door at 9 o’clock in the morning and the rest of the tour is worry-free. Many people do not like that type of travelling but there are many others who do. The packaged tour has become much more intelligent and much more attractive to-day. There are nature lovers’ tours; there are farmers’ tours, there are bird-watchers’ tours. In Northern Rhodesia, some two years ago, on a farm in which I had a small interest where we have a terrific amount of bird life, a special bird-watchers’ tour was arranged to Northern Rhodesia and the tourists spent three weeks on this farm just watching birds, some of which are only to be found in this particular area. As I have said, there are thousands of these packaged tours. And then we have to provide the facilities. The provision of facilities starts when the tourist arrives at Jan Smuts Airport. The thing that has always bothered me, is the lack of foreign languages at Jan Smuts Airport. I know as an English-Afrikaans-speaking South African, that when I go to Rome or France or Russia or anywhere in the world I have to rely on my English or my Afrikaans, which unfortunately few people understand; otherwise I have to get an interpreter. I always find somebody who speaks the language and I always find at international airports that departures of planes, etc., are announced in a number of languages, always in English, always in Italian, always in French and always in German because those are the four accepted languages. If the hon. the Minister wants to attract tourists to this country, then they must be made to feel at home as soon as they get here. Our Customs forms and our immigration forms must be drawn up in such a way that they will help the tourists. I think one of these forms to-day is also in French or Portuguese; I am not certain. When you go to France or to Italy you do not have to fill in a declaration which is only in Italian or only in French; it is in Italian, French, German and English. We have to do the same thing here. We have to have interpreters at our ports of entry if we want to attract people who speak foreign languages to this country; we have to provide the specialities of life; the festivals that are organized overseas, international game fishing, display of Native life in particular settings, because people do like to see the unusual. If you go to the Middle East you do not want to see an oil well or a tyre factory; you want to see an Arab riding his camel or a Bedouin wandering through the desert. That is what you come home and tell your friends about. Those are the things that you have to offer to the public. Sir, the other facilities are good roads, comfortable transport, special flights, of which there are very few in this country today, and proper guided tours. Sir, you will see that tourism is a business that requires planning and organizing. I hope the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity of getting his Department to go into what has happened in other countries in the world which have been faced with the same problems. I want to quote to him the example of Israel. Israel has built up one of the finest tourist businesses in the world for its size, but there was nothing haphazard about it. The whole thing was planned from the commencement. In 1956 an American team of experts was brought to Israel to conduct a complete survey and to make recommendations for the development of tourism. This survey showed that the number of tourists would jump from 44,000 in 1956 to 100,000 in 1960. That was the basis on which the plan was projected, e.g., that by 1960 there would be 100,000 tourists. In fact there were many more than 100,000. The first thing that was done was to make a complete survey of hotel accommodation, and it was found that if 100,000 visitors had to be accommodated by 1960 the hotel accommodation was completely inadequate. It was then established that because the sea and air fares were high it was the wealthier type of person who would come to the country and that therefore the luxury type of hotel would be required. The first planning therefore was for luxury hotels to take care of the wealthy visitor which was what they could expect and which is to a large extent what we can expect to-day. 40 to 50 per cent of the entire capital for these luxury hotels was provided by the Government. That was the first step, and they started building these hotels. But they projected themselves further because they knew that the poor always follow the rich. When the wealthy man has established a road to a particular area from a tourist point of view the less wealthy man follows automatically. They knew once tourism in Israel became popular there would be reductions in sea fares and in air fares and that lower-grade hotels would be required. So they started planning for lowergrade hotels as well. They worked out a basis that 66 per cent annual occupancy of an hotel would be profitable because 60 per cent occupancy was the break-even point. Then they found, as we have in this country, that there was a shortage of managerial skills and trained personnel to run the hotels. So they established training schools for hotel personnel. If you go to Israel to-day, Mr. Speaker, you will find first-class hotels of all qualities, from de luxe to what is known, I think, as the C or D grades. They are properly staffed and managed.

But I said there were two other factors. It was not only a question of getting the tourist to come here and giving him accommodation but you must try to keep him here as long as possible and induce him to spend his money. What they did in Israel was to launch a complete campaign for the sale of local products and souvenirs. It is interesting to know that after they determined what the tourist wanted and after they proceeded to see that he got what he wanted, a quality article and a variety of articles, the income from the sale of this type of goods went up from $225,000 in 1956 to $1,000,000 in 1958. The hon. the Minister, in conjunction with commerce and industry, has got to see that the means to help the tourist to spend his money are available in this country, that the South African goods, the South African curios, are presented and available in quality and quantity and variety. We have also to provide the special shopping facilities they provide overseas.

In America it costs a wealthy American £125 (R250) to have a suit made of the best British cloth. When an American goes to England the first thing he does is to run to the English tailor. He is doing the same thing in Israel, strangely enough, and he is certainly doing the same thing in Hong Kong. When we go to Hong Kong we do it. They have the best English worsted materials in these countries. You can have a British worsted suit made in Hong Kong within 48 hours, a suit of first-class quality, at a third of the price. We know the best quality English worsted suit made by the best tailor in South Africa can be bought for £50 (R100); that is top price, compared with £125 in the United States. If our American visitors to this country knew they were going to be in Cape Town for two or three days and they could have a suit made here in South Africa, where our tailoring is first-class, of English materials (which are still the best in the world) during the two or three days they are here, that will be an inducement to him to spend his money. Those are the people we have to concentrate on. There should be deliveries to airports, etc. I hope the hon. the Minister will encourage the hon. the Minister of Transport to have a duty-free shop in the new International Section he is constructing at the Jan Smuts Airport. I know he cannot do it now; there are no facilities. The easiest way to get South African products overseas are the dutyfree shops. The hon. Minister probably knows better than I do that every American can land in the United States with six bottles of hard liquor free of duty. Why should he have to pay the South African duty to take it to America? He does not; he waits till he gets to Amsterdam or London or Rome and then he ducks into the duty-free shop as quickly as he can, makes his purchases and off he goes. I have landed in London, for example, Sir, from the continent on many occasions and I never failed to buy a bottle of wine and a bottle of spirits before I left the airport because I was allowed to take that dutyfree into England where the duty is very high; and I give these away as gifts.

What! As gifts!

The hon. Minister must be satisfied with the gift of knowledge I am imparting to him and not worry about the liquor side.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has a unique opportunity. He has been given the opportunity of taking over the powers of a very hard-working and relatively successful organization with full Cabinet support and with the full strength of a ministerial position. All I would say to the hon. the Minister today is that he has had lots of advice, we hope he will take some of it and we hope he will make a great success of this new undertaking.

As the hon. member who has just sat down has said, the Minister has had a lot of advice and I should say, a lot of sympathy in this very big task he is undertaking. I was not here earlier so I do not know just how much support he got from his side of the House. Previous speakers have travelled far and wide in giving the evidence and advice they have so willingly and plainly set before the Minister. I think this is a big undertaking and, therefore, if there is anything we can do we shall gladly do so. We all realize that tourism is a big money-spinner and is a great attraction to our country from that aspect.

We have unlimited beauty in this country; we have fauna and flora. The only trouble is that while we have this in such abundance the world, very largely, does not know of what we have to offer. So many of us who have had the opportunity of travelling overseas know of the beautiful mountain scenery in Switzerland for instance. When we come back and look at our own mountain scenery we realize that the only drawback in regard to our mountain scenery is the lack of roadways. We have beautiful mountain scenery in Natal, in the Eastern Province and here in the Cape. Much attention is given to the building of hotels, etc., but I think our local authorities which have mountain scenery in their areas should be encouraged to construct mountain roads. I can detail quite a number, Sir, but I realize that that is possibly not what this debate is for at this stage. I would, however, focus the Minister’s attention on this particular aspect. Many visitors I have taken around have said to me that our mountain scenery in the Eastern Province and along the Garden Route, for instance, compares very favourably with anything else they have seen, but that the difficulty is that it is inaccessible; they could not see from the top of the mountain, or even higher up from the road. I think those are things we must bear in mind in future.

On the question of advertising, I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to come nearer home just to illustrate what it can do for a city. I think every member has heard of our famous performing dolphin, Haig, at Port Elizabeth, which, through advertising and through being properly housed, has brought a tremendous amount of tourism to that city. It proves the fact that you have to find out what the public appreciates, stage that attraction and then do the advertising. In that respect I am afraid we have failed hopelessly, and I do hope this Minister is going to take the position in hand realistically and overcome that particular weakness. It is constantly put to us by visitors from overseas when they have returned from any of our parks or beauty spots. They usually say: “It is grand but why don’t you advertise; why does the world not know about it?”

I do believe another member has dealt with what I feel is something very important and which will be of great attraction to overseas visitors. We all know that big-game hunting has been a tremendous attraction, particularly to the wealthy Americans, and visitors from the continent. One wonders whether the time is not still there for this Minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Lands, to put aside some large tracts of Government areas and ultimately build up a game park. I know all game in South Africa is now under control. Cannot such a game park be established where overseas visitors could from time to time, naturally under licence and control, have the experience of hunting big game in our country instead of having to go to the northern states to seek that pleasure?

We must also emphasize the important fact that we can offer all the big game fishing in our waters. Unfortunately, while the amateur has endeavoured to take advantage of the position and has done a tremendous lot of advertising and has had an enormous amount of pleasure out of it, I have no doubt, it has been left at that stage. I think it is the duty of the Government to let the sportsmen of the world know that these facilities are available. Possibly an exploration on the Minister’s part in that direction may make big game fishing in our waters possible. We know our waters abound in all the big game fish. That should be a very big attraction to our country. We have the evidence that even the Prime Minister can prove that he can land a big fish. One must appreciate that if the proper facilities are made available this should prove a tremendous attraction. I do not know much about this matter, but I do know that we have tuna, marlin, sword fish, etc., in our waters.

I felt that I would like to make my contribution to this particular debate, Mr. Speaker. We in the Eastern Cape have much to offer. You will naturally understand, Sir, that we too would like to wish the Minister well in this undertaking. We hope he will apply himself to his task and that, in spite of this Government, we will still have a tremendous flow of visitors and immigrants to our country.

I did not think that this modest little Bill I was introducing would lead to such an interesting discussion, a discussion which found members lyrical, as in the case of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze), others sometimes critical but at any rate with good feeling. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and I have often clashed in debates but even he wished me well and good luck in this new Department of Tourism. Hon. members who have spoken—and I take it also those who have not taken part in the debate—obviously know the tourist attractions of their constituencies well. Basically it is through them, through the local authorities, through the hotel trade and so forth that we shall be able to make our country attractive to visitors.

The debate covered the beauties of the bikini girls at Clifton up to the Gemsbuck Game Reserve in the North-western areas. It was practically a question of round the world in five hours. I appreciate the spirit of the debate and the fact that hon. members appreciate that tourism is a very big business undertaking and that it has great possibilities for South Africa. I can assure hon. members that their remarks, their suggestions and their criticisms will be carefully analysed by my Department. Where necessary their ideas and suggestions will be forwarded to Satour and to the Administrators who are part and parcel of our tourist organization. In that way we shall see to it that every attention is given to the matters raised. I believe criticism is a healthy thing. I do not regard it as a slander against Satour or the Department. I feel well-directed criticism can be very useful in the formulation of the best plan of attack. Of course there are occasions when criticism voiced in newspapers is not always correct. I just want to give hon. members an example of that. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) referred to an Italian visitor, a member of a team, who had made certain complaints to the Press about what he had found in some of our national parks. When I first saw that in the Press I immediately took steps to find out whether he could be contacted in order to hear what the trouble was. I do not want to read the whole telex report but this is more or less the basis—

We managed to contact him last night. He alleged that the newspapers had misreported him. He stated further that he never made any allegation against the Department of Tourism except that he thought the Department should contribute towards the improvement of facilities in national parks.

He has no knowledge of conditions in South Africa because the national parks are subsidized by the Government. The report goes on—

No spaghetti.

Do vou have to have spaghetti in the Kruger National Park? He also said that there were no facilities in the Kruger National Park to locate lions and elephants. According to the Press report, Sir, you would have thought that here was a sound case of real criticism. I was anxious to rectify anything that was wrong. I am still anxious to talk to this person. I have made arrangements to see him but that was the report of his criticism that I received up to now.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) seemed to think I was a little bit off handed and did not disclose sufficient information in regard to his question about hotels. I thought about that question very carefully. It only came up to-day. His question was: “Whether he has been approached for Government assistance to build an international hotel”. My reply to that was “yes”. “If so, (a) on what date, (b) on behalf of which companies or persons was the approach made, (c) what was the nature of the representations and (d) what was the date of his reply; and (2) whether any assistance was promised; if so, what assistance?” The hon. member was reluctant to ask questions arising from the reply, and I thought the hon. member, with his business experience, had accepted the reply I gave him. The reply was this: “(1) and (2) yes; discussions and negotiations are proceeding in respect of three international prestige hotels to be erected in Johannesburg. As soon as finality has been reached a full statement will be issued.” Surely the hon. member does not expect me at this stage to say what the nature of the representations were, which persons or companies had made approaches or whether assistance had been promised. Surely when finality has been reached in connection with these matters is the time for a full statement. The hon. member said my reply was no reply to him and no reply to the people concerned. He referred to a newspaper report …

Which gave the name.

Yes, which gave the name. I want to tell the hon. member that that newspaper report was apparently published in a morning paper. Before I had even seen that report I got a telephone call from the person who led the negotiations for that particular group. I made a note of what he said. He asked me whether I had seen the report and I said, no. He said it was an unauthorized statement not made by him and that I should just ignore it because there was no truth in it. In his criticism the hon. member tried to make out that the Government had failed in its duty with regard to encouraging these sort of hotels, that the Press report blamed the Government and that he accepted that report. The hon. member must not always believe what he sees in the Press. I do not blame them; they want to put over a story but he must not take it as such an accurate story that he can rely on it for his criticism.

Not even the South African Digest?

This appeared in the Press, Sir. The hon. member must not run away from that. He was talking about a Press report in connection with this hotel. And this was what the person said who led those negotiations. The hon. member said the Government was responsible for delaying this matter and therefore it was not doing its duty towards Johannesburg. He said it was really only in a centre like Johannesburg where these hotels should apply …

No.

I made a note of it. He said he could not agree that it should apply all over the main centres in South Africa.

Not all over South Africa, but certainly in Johannesburg.

Certainly in Johannesburg. He said there was a shortage of hotels in Johannesburg. The hon. member knows the city of Johannesburg. He has been the mayor of Johannesburg. It has never been the function of a Government to produce hotels. That is the function of private enterprise and yet the Government is still trying to reach some basis on which three international hotels can be built in Johannesburg. I do not think the hon. member was right in his general criticism, based on an inaccurate report.

I want to come to the main point of dissension and that is the so-called Hotel Clause. The change that is taking place is a deletion of certain words. Instead of the words “in respect of which application for such registration must be made to the board” as the old Act read we have classification and registration without the qualification on application. There has never been an application for classification under that section of the Act. When it came to making amendments to the Act, which we had to do, this was obviously one of the sections we had to take into account. The hon. member for Von Brandis thought this was an unwise step. He said he was not really against the idea of classification but he thought this clause should be dropped. Of course, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is always extravagant. He said I was acting like a dictator; that I was taking arbitrary rights and powers; why did I not tell this House about a letter I had received from the Hotel Association, etc.? The hon. member for Green Point also expressed some doubts about the Hotel Clause and I accept it in the spirit in which he expressed those doubts. He did not insinuate that I was taking some dictatorial powers. He asked whether it was advisable and he also referred to this letter. The position is quite straightforward.

I want to refer the hon. member for Von Brandis to the commission of which he was chairman in 1942-3. The following was one of the findings of that commission—

It was. a compulsory idea. If you go into the actual draft Bill that was suggested the hon. member, who was the chairman, said—

That is a hotel board.

Quite. That is the principle of compulsory classification.

We accept that.

I shall try to reply to the hon. member. I want to show hon. members that it is not a matter of taking dictatorial powers; it is a matter of whether it is wise to take certain steps. The whole basis of grading and registration in this measure was considered on the basis of compulsory classification. I want to point out to hon. members that this clause does not deal only with classification of hotels; it deals with classification of all accommodation. It deals, as it is stated in this Higgerty report, with all categories of hotels, tourist hotels, residential hotels, boarding houses, guest farms, holiday camps. I quite appreciate that a Hotel Commission is sitting. I quite appreciate that the Hotel Commission may think along the lines the hon. member for Von Brandis more or less decided in his report, was the correct approach. But this clause does not deal only with hotels. It deals with all sorts of accommodation establishments. Obviously when it comes to a body that is going to classify and grade hotels that will not necessarily be the same body that will classify and grade residential boarding houses. Therefore, all I wanted to make sure was that even when it came to other classifications it could not only be done on application. You must have the power to classify. All members have said it was right that we should classify. Can hon. members now say that caravan parks and hotels and such like should be classified only when the owner applies? Surely one should have the right to classify them. As I said in my second-reading speech this is an enabling power covering many types of accommodation.

With regard to the Hotel Association, the hon. member for Green Point read that letter and I quite appreciate the views of the Hotel Association. Let me first read the reply I got from the Federated Association of Hotels which is the liquor side of the hotel industry. I wrote to them and I said: Look, as far as the compulsory classification of hotels is concerned, I am awaiting the Hotel Commission’s Report, as I said in introducing the second-reading debate. I also said to them that when it comes to the compulsory classification of hotels and the commission’s report and their recommendations, they could have the assurance that naturally I would call them in for discussion whatever the recommendations might be. I also do not know what the recommendations are going to be and the hotels are going to be directly involved. They are the people to discuss whatever board or whatever body should be established. The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked whether they would be represented on such board. All those things will have to be discussed, and these are the people you have got to discuss these matters. Even the Non-Liquor Association, if there is any recommendation like that, they must be consulted to see in what way a basis of classification arrangement can be reached. This is the letter, in reply, which I received from this Hotel Association—

So there is no atmosphere of suspicion or anything like that. The hotels themselves realize that something is going to emerge from the Hotel Commission’s Report, and I said to them that when the report comes I will study it and discuss it with them, and then a final decision will possibly be made. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) mentioned that there could be classification by Satour or some other body. I can assure him that I will not pass it on to Satour (that right I have) or any other body that might be suggested by the Hotel Commission, until the matter has been properly considered. That is one of the matters the commission went into. I want to see what their report has to say about it. I say therefore that I think there has been a bit of misunderstanding, in that this, is merely an enabling clause for all accommodation establishments, right along the line, and as far as the hotel industry is concerned they have the assurance that I have given them, and with which I intend naturally to comply. They will have every opportunity of putting their case, even after the Hotel Commission has made its recommendations and they have had the opportunity of studying these recommendations.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question: Will the hotels be directly represented on the body that does the classifying?

I do not want to anticipate the Hotel Commission’s Report, but I should imagine that whatever body is put forward, will be a body which is representative of various interests, and the hotel industry will be one of those interests. I do not think for a moment that it will be otherwise. Naturally if they will make representations to me afterwards, I will consider what they have to say in the light of their representations. But their knowledge of the hotel industry is so essential to a board operating in this way that I have no doubt that something of that sort will be put forward.

Should the body be Satour, will the hotels be represented?

If the body would be Satour, it would not be Satour as it exists at the present moment. As I see it, this would not happen, but if it were to be the case and an objection were raised, I would see to it that the hotel industry would be represented on that body dealing with hotel classification.

The next point on which I think there was a certain amount of misunderstanding was in regard to the position of Satour and the Department, or shall I say the Minister, because the Minister as it were can direct certain of these functions of Satour to be carried out by the Department or somebody else. I think the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) said that Satour was now a creature of the Minister’s Department where previously it had been an autonomous body. But he seemed to accept that possibly there should be a more direct contact between the Minister and Satour. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said that the Minister was assuming the functions of Satour, that the Minister intends to take over all the functions of Satour, that Satour would become merely an advisory board to the Minister, that it would be no longer an independent statutory body. Of course what the hon. member for Turffontein says is absolute nonsense. And I would put it to the hon. member for Von Brandis, who knows the position, that, in fact, Satour is still an independent autonomous body. He asked whether the Minister when taking over the board, would now insist that public service regulations must be applied to them in regard to the appointment of staff. But Satour’s position has not been altered in that respect at all. Satour under Function 9 (a) can “engage such employees as may be necessary and enter into contracts for the rendering of personal services by persons other than employees of the Corporation”. The Minister’s approval is not even necessary. Satour has that authority, and obviously therefore there is no thought whatever of the Minister trying to force another system onto Satour. In fact it is similar to other boards, such as agricultural boards which are also autonomous. There may be an arrangement between the Minister and the Satour Board when it comes to, shall we say, the salary of the Director or the salaries of the higher officials so that it does not get out of line with the ordinary salaries of the higher officials of the various Departments, but as far as their autonomy is concerned, there is no doubt about the position. I would say again to the hon. members that the whole purpose of this alteration is to create a more efficient tourist division of functions to have more co-ordination so that Satour instead of having a whole lot of functions, only some of which it can fulfil, will have certain functions allocated to it and other functions will be allocated elsewhere.

Then we come to another point which was raised in regard to the promotional material of Satour. Here again the hon. member for Turffontein said that the promotional material of Satour is wrong. He talked about the dusky maidens and the hairdo’s and the hut in the kraal rather than the Clifton bikinis, he talked about braaivleise instead of luxurious restaurants, and he talked about posters of proteas and zebras which were quite inadequate and uninteresting. The hon. member for Von Brandis, however, said, and I know he meant it, that the promotional productions of Satour are excellent. He said that they are of world standard, accepted on all sides as such. Anybody who has seen Satour productions will say that they are of world class and they are recognized as world class. The hon. member for Turffontein said that we should have posters of Clifton, and posters of this and posters of that, but obviously the hon. member does not even know what Satour is doing. He had the annual reports before him. Even there, there is a statement in regard to Clifton, and Clifton Beach is shown in the book, showing Clifton and the attractions of this Riviera of the Cape. But besides that, there is “Colourful South Africa” which is issued to all the travel agents in quantities, with all the pictures beautifully done. You have the calendars which members have seen, which are sold and issued in limited numbers.

I am quite prepared to accept criticism but then there must be some substance in it, and to generalize and say that the promotional material is useless and is no good, is nonsense and useless criticism. There are the films that Satour has produced last year “To Catch a Rhino”, etc., and I want to say that in the one case the film “Lake Wilderness” with French commentary was entered for the 12th International Tourist and Folklore Film Week Exhibition held under the auspices of an international organization, when 34 countries entered films. “Lake Wilderness” was awarded the floating trophy by the Belgian Minister. So the material is good and I have no hesitation in saying that on that score Satour cannot be criticized. But of course if the hon. member for Turffontein thinks that South Africa can be changed into a tourist attraction of night clubs with that sort of atmosphere, he does not understand the position of South Africa. South Africa will never be a night club country. It has got too many outdoor attractions. It has got swimming, sports, all these day-time amenities.

It can have night clubs too.

I am talking about a night club country like Paris. But if we have good restaurants and good food in the restaurants, we should be satisfied. I think South Africa will never be a country which will attract tourists who want to play about until 3 or 4 in the morning. For my part I am not going to put any efforts into changing this atmosphere so that we can attract that sort of tourists.

Then he came to the matter of accommodation raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis. I appreciate that with his knowledge of the hotel industry he realizes that it can be a bottleneck, and this Hotel Commission is also tackling the hotel industry as a whole. The negotiations with the Government are not in regard to what hon. members call generally luxury hotels. What I referred to in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Hospital, is an international prestige hotel, which is a luxury hotel, but where there is an international call for an hotel. That is why even before the Hotel Commission’s Report has come forward, the Government was prepared to consider ways and means of attracting that sort of hotel.

I do not want to go into a lot of figures that I have here, because the hon. member for Von Brandis asked whether some of our efforts and expenditure in certain countries is worthwhile. I have a lot of figures here. In many cases the expenditure to bring tourists here is fairly cheap, R10, R20, in Australia where the office has only been going for two years it costs R50 per visitor for every man who comes here. But on the average they calculate the cost per visitor as R2.69, and they say that each tourist spends approximately R320 in South Africa. That includes the Rhodesias as well, and that is the average as a whole. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) referred to tourist market research, and I know that Satour is giving attention to that in various directions, but undoubtedly if one really wants to tackle tourism in all its aspects, then one must be sure by research that you are going in the right direction, and I think considerable attention will have to be given to that aspect.

As I have said, the points made by hon. members and their suggestions and criticisms will be analysed and tabulized.

May I ask a question for information? The hon. Minister said that the cost per visitor was R2.69.

The cost to the office.

Yes, but that included visitors from Rhodesia. Has the hon. Minister a figure in respect of the cost of persons coming from overseas, exclusive of Rhodesia? I think that would be the more interesting figure.

I can give hon. members a few figures which I held back because I thought time was running short. But let me give a few of these items to hon. members. In 1948, there were 25,000 overseas visitors and in 1962 the number was 36,000. The European Continent was excluded from those figures after 1959-60 when the office in Frankfurt was opened, but the figure for the U.K. was approximately 1959-60 R6, 1960-1, R5½, 1961-2, R7, 1962-3, R6½. Those are very rough figures which I calculated by taking the number of visitors and the expenditure in each case. As far as the European Continent is concerned, Frankfurt started in 1959, and the figures are: R5 in 1960 and R8½ for 1960-1, R11½ for 1961-2, and R10 for 1962-3. They are rough figures to give hon. members an idea. The work in North America is much more expensive. There the figures were R28, R30, R35 and R40 per visitor. Australia, where we have only had an office for two years, the cost was approximately R50 for each visitor that has come to this country.

I would say in conclusion that I realize that the Department of Tourism will again come under discussion when the Vote comes before this House, not only this year, but also in future years, and members will expect me as Minister to be answerable to them for various points that have been raised now. All I can say is that I appreciate the underlying goodwill that exists on all sides of the House that a success should be made of this Department and of tourism for South Africa, and I can assure them that I will do all I can to see that that comes about.

I move—

It is well known that the South African legislation dealing with bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes, and which was enacted separately by the four provinces, was modelled on the lines of the British Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. In 1957, however, the British Act was amended in such a way that it is no longer necessary for banks in the United Kingdom to ensure that cheques and other similar negotiable documents are properly endorsed when they are deposited by the drawees directly into their own banking account for collection. This step resulted in the elimination of a vast amount of unproductive work, particularly as far as banking institutions are concerned, and in 1955 the British example was followed by the then Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Some years ago a joint committee, on which commerce and industry, the mining industry, the building societies, etc., were represented, made representations to the Government for the introduction of similar amending legislation in the Republic. The Cabinet agreed and the necessary bills of exchange amending Bill was introduced during the 1962 session but it was not proceeded with after the first reading. Hon. members will remember that in 1963 the amending Bill was referred to a select committee after the first reading. The select committee recommended that the Bill as submitted by it should be proceeded with. As a result of the fact, however, that Parliament was faced with a full legislative programme last session, the Bill as submitted by the select committee was not proceeded with.

It was always our intention, after having brought about the amendments referred to, to translate and to consolidate the various preunion provincial measures, which were enacted in English only. Having regard to the new rules of this House it was decided to introduce one Bill to consolidate and amend the various laws dealing with bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes rather than to amend the four different laws that we have in the four provinces at the present time. The amended provisions, as they were adopted by the select committee, are incorporated in this consolidating measure.

Hon. members have probably noticed that we have also brought about a number of minor amendments. On the face of it it looks as though we are bringing about many more amendments than those proposed by the select committee, but the reason for that is that we were faced here with quite an exceptional problem as far as consolidating legislation is concerned. We were faced with the problem, not of consolidating quite a number of laws enacted by one legislative authority from time to time, but of consolidating four different provincial ordinances which differed from one another in certain respects, and we felt that the best way to tackle it, where differences existed, was to indicate where those differences existed. Usually the position in the Cape, the Transvaal and the Free State were more or less the same, but the Natal legislation followed a different form. In some cases we accepted the Natal method and in other cases we accepted the system prevailing in the other three provinces. The result of that is that it looks as though this Bill contains quite a large number of amendments. May I just give an example to indicate what our problem was and why it looks as though there are large numbers of amendments. If hon. members will look at Section 3bis in Clause 3 they will see that the whole of Section 3bis is now being deleted. Section 3bis sets out the Natal form, and it is interesting to see what the Natal form was.

It still is.

That is so, but I hope that this is no longer the feeling in Natal. The Natal legislation reads as follows—

Well, I think that provision in the Natal ordinance is no longer of force and effect but we had to indicate it here as though we are bringing about a change whereas in actual fact the position is not being changed. Then there are two other cases which I might just mention to hon. members. I refer to Clause 57. There it looks as though a new provision is being inserted. I read out the English text because the original is in the English language only. In this Bill the clause reads as follows—

That is not a new provision that we are inserting here; This actually sets out what the position was in the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, but in Natal the position was slightly different. There they stated it very briefly and succinctly—

A bill is discharged by payment in due course if such payment be made by or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor.

I just want to add too that in Clause 58 there are certain words which should really have been underlined, namely the proviso. Hon. members will observe that the proviso has not been underlined, but I draw attention to this because it has been brought to my notice by the law advisers. The proviso in Clause 58 does not appear in the Natal law either, and this portion of the clause should therefore have been underlined, just as in the case of Clause 57 which I have read out.

The only other point which is really of interest and which I want to mention just to illustrate what our problem was in consolidating the various laws, is contained in Clause 62. There, as hon. members will see, we have underlined the first words as though they represent a new insertion: “If a bill or an acceptance is materially altered, the liability of all parties who were parties to the Bill at the date of alteration and who did not assent to it, must be regarded as if the alteration had not been made, but any party who has in himself made, authorized or assented to the alteration, and all subsequent endorsers are liable on the bill as altered.” The Natal Section 62 read somewhat differently; it read as follows—

The actual meaning has not been altered here but the clause has been drafted in a different form.

Hon. members may want to know perhaps why we decided in certain cases to follow the Natal text and in other cases the text which appears in the law of the other three provinces. Well, as far as possible we were guided by what is the actual banking practice at the present time, and to make quite sure that we were on the right track, that this was not just the interpretation of my Department or of the legal draftsman, I asked Mr. Greenlees, a retired general manager of Barclays Bank, who is at present a director of the bank, to go through these clauses and to tell us whether the clauses, as incorporated in this Bill, were in agreement with the existing banking practice. Mr. Greenlees also went through the three important clauses which I have read out, but they were also examined by Mr. Beattie, the assistant general manager of Barclays Bank, together with all the other clauses, and they reported to me that these clauses were in conformity with the existing practice of the banks. For all practical purposes therefore, hon. members can take it from me that they need not really take much notice of all the square brackets and the solid lines indicating omissions and insertions. The important change which is actually being brought about here is the change which is being effected on the recommendation of the select committee and to which I have already referred.

Before I conclude I should like to refer to the second report of the select committee on the subject of the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill. The committee recommended that the Government should consider the advisability of prohibiting the use of receipt forms at the back of cheques in the future. This aspect was discussed with the Reserve Bank and the commercial banks. In the light of our discussions with these bodies, I do not consider it desirable to pass legislation to prohibit the use of receipt forms on cheques in view of the fact that this is something which can be rectified administratively. An agreement was eventually arrived at with the banks that the banks themselves would try to discourage their clients from using the backs of cheques for the purpose of obtaining receipts. It is generally felt, however, that as soon as these amending provisions become law, receipts at the backs of cheques will automatically disappear. That is why I cannot accept this recommendation. The banks have given me an undertaking that they themselves will urge upon their clients that this is redundant. Their own feeling is that this will take place automatically. In actual fact therefore the only new provision here is the provision that if a drawee pays a cheque into his own account he need not endorse the back of the cheque. This provision, as I have already said, is one which will eliminate a tremendous amount of unproductive work.

We support this Bill which brings the law into line with modern mercantile and banking practice. I think the Minister can be criticized for not either referring this matter to a select committee or submitting a White Paper on the Bill. As the Minister indicated in his opening remarks, and as the Schedule to the Bill shows, it affects some ten statutes, one going as far back as 1862. Here we have a Bill which, as the Minister said in the course of his remarks, is not a consolidating Bill, as is generally known in the parliamentary sense. It is a Bill which takes various portions of the various statutes and ordinances in the various provinces, and as the Minister rightly says, it takes the best and the most practical portions of those statutes and imports those into the text of this Bill. It would be far easier to examine the Bill in greater detail if one had the advantage of a White Paper or, alternatively, if this Bill could have been referred to a select committee and the various interested parties could be called to give their views and criticisms and to make suggestions to improve the Bill. Last year a Bill which was not nearly as important as this one, in regard to bills of exchange, was referred to a select committee, which heard the views of interested parties, and the Bill which came back to Parliament was virtually an agreed measure. Here we are altering statutes which have been in operation for many years in the various provinces, and while we rightly agree that there should be consolidation at this stage we think there should have been an opportunity to have a fuller explanation than that given by the Minister. The Minister has given us a very sketchy explanation of the Bill. We are surely entitled to more than that in a Bill of this nature. The Minister has practised at the Bar with some success and I think he will agree with me that the bills of exchange practice and some of the cases he lost and won must have convinced him that in practice a bill of exchange is not as simple as the Minister appears to believe, judging from his remarks. We trust that if the Minister proposes introducing any further financial measures of this kind, he will come to Parliament with a White Paper. That is the way to treat Parliament. While we support the Bill, we do suggest that it might have been wiser to refer the matter to a select committee, and submitted a White Paper. As far as we can ascertain from the interested parties and the various banks and the members of the accounting and the legal professions, there is general acceptance of this Bill, but that is no excuse for the Minister not giving Parliament the benefit of a White Paper so that we can see in greater detail the effect of all the various amendments to the statutes and proclamations and ordinances which have been the background of bills of exchange in practice in the mercantile and banking life of this country. With those words I support the second reading of the Bill.

It is tragic and shocking to hear the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) criticising the Minister for not having issued a White Paper, and because the Bill has not been referred to a Select Committee. Have the Opposition now descended to such a level that they can no longer think for themselves and cannot check a law and see what is good, and that the Minister has to explain everything to them by way of a White Paper, or that every little piece of legislation introduced here has to be referred to a select Committee? It seems to me the Opposition is no longer willing to work. They are tired and paralysed. The hon. member should rather devote his time to studying the laws and then coming forward with something positive.

I think we can congratulate and thank the hon. the Minister and the Department for having come forward with these amendments in this consolidating legislation. Ten Acts and ordinances are now being repealed. Things have been very difficult, but now these things have been made easier. However as the Minister has said, a few new things are added, which have been accepted by the Banks. I do not know why there should be a Select Committee now. I think we as a House of Assembly are capable of dealing with these matters ourselves and to make certain recommendations.

I should like to throw out a few suggestions for the consideration of the House, and draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to some new ideas which might be considered, if not now then later. Section 57 now provides very clearly that when a bill is partly paid, it may be endorsed to that effect. That is a very good thing, for one frequently finds that when a Bill has to be met, the party who has to pay cannot always pay in full, and now this can be done. I should like to ask the Minister whether this is not the occasion for introducing a uniform form of bill in our law. When a Bill is accepted and transferred, it sometimes is so completely covered with signatures and stamps that one is unable to ascertain what the true position is. Is it not possible to specify some standard form in the Act, with spaces for the signatures of the endorser and the acceptor? If that were done, it will be much easier for the parties dealing with it. for the banks, and it will eliminate much of the time unnecessarily wasted in searching for signatures.

This brings me to my next point, namely our cheques. Section 83 provides that businesses no longer have to endorse cheques when they are banked. Of course this has it’s pro’s and it’s con’s. A fairly large branch of a bank handles between 20,000 and 30,000 cheques per day, and now the bank officials have to check that large number of cheques every day to see whether all the endorsements are in order, and that is a tremendous waste of time. But there is another factor worrying me, and that is that when a cheque is deposited in a bank account, and it is not stipulated or endorsed upon its reverse side to which account it has gone, and it is returned unpaid which account is then going to be credited by the Bank? That is something the banks will have to do, namely to see to it that when such a cheque is deposited in an account, which is not drawn in favour of the account in which it has been deposited, the signature or the stamp of the account in which it is deposited is endorsed on it. But taken by and large, this is a very great improvement and in spite of this objection I have, it is a great advantage too.

However, there is another aspect I should like to mention and that is unpaid cheques. The present position is that a cheque is not really legal tender. A creditor need not accept a cheque in payment, and if he does accept a cheque he really does so as conditional payment of the debt. If the cheque is returned unpaid, he may sue the creditor on the original debt, or he may sue the drawer of that cheque on the basis of his obligations as guarantor on the cheque itself. When it is a cash transaction and the cheque comes back unpaid, the person who has received the cheque may at once recover his goods, if it is not too long afterwards. Then we have the position also that if there has been fraud in connection with a dishonoured cheque, criminal action may be instituted, but then we place upon the State the onus of proving that there has been fraud. As regards these unpaid cheques, there are an enormous number of cheques that are returned unpaid in our country. To me a cheque is as much an economic article as anything else, such as a tin of fish one buys. It is something you give as a consideration for something you have received. I have gone into the position and I find that in England and in Germany there is no such rule of law that the issue of a cheque which is subsequently returned unpaid is an offence per se. There may be fraud, but then the onus is on the State to prove that there has been fraud. In the U.S.A. all the States have the so-called “Bad Check Laws”. In terms of those Acts, the drawer is given a specified period of time in which the matter may be out right after such a cheque has been returned unpaid. In the U.S.A. it is an offence to issue a cheque if the drawer does not have funds in his account to meet that cheque and there is an intention to defraud. No mention of punishable offences in this particular connection is made in the laws of the Netherlands. However, under the criminal law of that country, such an act may be regarded as fraud, and dealt with as such. In Switzerland the law is somewhat more stringent. There the issue of cheques which are returned to the drawer is not permissible. However, it is not clear to me whether it is regarded as a punishable offence if this does in fact happen. In Belgium the position is very interesting, and that is what I really wish to urge upon the Minister. Imprisonment for one to two years as well as a fine may be imposed where a person knowingly issued a cheque without having cover for that cheque in his bank account. This legislation in Belgium has resulted in very few cheques being returned in Belgium, and I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to consider whether the time has not arrived for it to be made an offence when a cheque is returned, and for this procedure which has been adopted in Belgium to be adopted in our country also.

Then I should like to mention a few other small points. My remarks do not apply to this legislation only, but they contain a few general thoughts in respect of all laws, and I have come across these points in this Bill too incidentally. The one is in regard to the use of Latin expressions. A few years ago we had a private motion in this House which urged that Latin should be dispensed with as a pre-requisite for the admission of attorneys. The question has occurred to me: When we pass legislation here, do we adhere to our official languages, English and Afrikaans? But no, I see now that this Act teem; with Latin expressions. It reminds me so much of a haunch of game stuffed with bacon. It is very tasty, but the bacon is not good for one’s health, and I think these Latin terms are not so good for the person who does not know Latin. I should like to mention only a few, amongst others “prima facie” in Clauses 28 and 34. I think we could very easily substitute the English expression “on the face of it” or the Afrikaans expression “op die oog af” for it. These Acts should not be only for the man who has taken Latin, and others who have not taken Latin must go to an attorney every time to ask what it means, or otherwise he must look up a Latin dictionary. I think we should draft our Acts in such a way in English and Afrikaans, without using these Latin terms, that anybody can understand them clearly. Next there is the expression “mutatis mutandis” which means “with the necessary changes”. Incidentally, in Clause 98(2) the Afrikaans expression is used once. Then I should like to draw attention to Clause 20. Here we have a reference to those two Latin laws the “Senatus consultum Velleianum” which means that a woman may not be a surety for anybody, and the second the “Authentica si qua mulier” which means that a woman may not be surety for her husband.

A few years ago I had this interesting case in Pretoria, that where these terms are used, you have to take your wife to the attorney and he then explains to her what all this means. When I arrived in the attorney's office, and he had to explain it to me, I asked him what those words really meant, and he merely explained to me that there are certain restrictions to which a woman is subject, and those restrictions were now being eliminated, and he could not explain more closely to me what the meaning of those words was. He said he had studied Latin for years and years, but he had forgotten it. Surely that is not what we want in this country to-day.

This then brings me to these two laws. I feel the time has arrived for us to do away with these two laws. I wish to urge that the right of a woman under these two laws should be done away with. What is the real position of a woman at the present time? The position of a woman has changed considerably since these two laws were originally inherited from the Roman-Dutch law. We find that in their book “Kontraktereg en Handelsreg”, De Wet and Yeats tell us that the capacity and the incapacity of a woman are curtailed to some extent by these two laws, but sometimes there may be exceptions. I should like to read only this little paragraph (Translated):

This is really the case where she has appeared before an attorney and he has enlightened her. At the present time we have women who are themselves doing big business, and I think it is quite superfluous to take a woman to an attorney so that he may enlighten her and tell her just what I have already said here. The second case is where she assumes the debt of somebody who is her creditor. Then it does not apply either. Thirdly, where, after two years, she confirms the assumption of debt; fourthly, where she has been benefitted by the assumption of debt, or has received a consideration for it; fifthly, where she has fraudulently held herself out to be the principal debtor of joint principal debtor; sixthly, where the creditor is a minor and the principal debtor is unable to pay; and, finally, where the woman is a public trader and the Act relates to her trade. Those are the instances in which she cannot invoke this protection. I should like to mention only one example of what happens in connection with our cheques at the present time. When a woman pays her rent by cheque, and subsequently it appears that she has stood surety for her husband, she may recover that rent. For these reasons I am pleading that this matter should receive attention.

Then there are a few other things. I found it in this legislation also incidentally, and once again this is only a thought with reference to what I have said already, namely that our Acts should be readable and uniform. I am thinking, among other things, of my articled clerks. This is one of the Acts they must know, and if it is difficult to understand, they cannot be expected to consult an attorney. Nor can I expect it from the man in the street to do it every day. In Clauses 68 and 100 “namptissement” is referred to. This really means a provisional sentence. I should like to urge that when our legislation is drafted it should be done in simple language. I know the legal draftsmen disagree with me. Personally I premier to have the Act in flowing reading language, but I shall not evoke further arguments on that.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, and that is the mode of modification of a dishonoured bill, that is to say, when a Bill is not met and is returned. As soon as a Bill has been refused by nonacceptance or non-payment, the holder has to give the drawer and every indorser notice, because they are virtually the sureties. A drawer or indorser who has not yet received notice, is discharged from his obligations as guarantor. But now we find that if the holder of such a Bill which has not been met has given the drawer and the indorser notice, this is not sufficient. He has to go still further and protest the Bill in order to recover from the drawer and the indorser, and it is not sufficient for that holder merely to notify him that payment has been refused. In order to facilitate proof in Court that there has not been payment, he has to go still further and have a return of debt drawn by a notary, which we call a protest. The fact that the Bill has not been paid, has to be set forth fully there. Now, if a Bill is refused, there has to be due protest through that notary, and now I ask what are all the things that notary has to do and who is he?

In ordinary practical life, a notary is a very important person. In former years we found that in the towns the notary, together with the minister of religion and the teacher really was the prominent person in the town, and the man carried much weight. When we refer to the Admission of Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act No. 23 of 1934, we find a definition of “notary”. I just want to quote Section 23 which reads as follows—

The court may, upon application made in the manner prescribed by this Act, admit and enrol as a notary, any attorney who produces proof that—

1. (a) he is an attorney admitted to practise as such by such court; and
2. (b) he has not at any time been struck off the roll or suspended from practice, and that no proceedings are pending to strike his name off the roll or to suspend him from practice; and
3. (c) he has passed the practical examination referred to in paragraph (b) of section twenty-seven.

In other words, the notary virtually is the cream of that profession. This shows us they are picked men. This notary always had to make that return. It is a very involved matter and it is difficult, but an exception has also been made now that where there is no notary available, a landowner or the head of a family —which are new expressions in this Act (formerly it was an affluent inhabitant)—may go with two witnesses to protest that Bill. Then they have to take that Bill to the person who accepted it and present it again, and if he then refuses, this return is drawn up. Mr. Speaker, I say that is completely obsolete and unnecessary and so I should like to urge that this should also be reconsidered. Any businessman, any honourable person—not one of these members of Parliament may protest his own Bill. I am thinking of men like Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Dr. Anton Rupert and all these big businessmen. Surely they are not men who will go to court fraudulently when they certify that a Bill was not paid when presented. I think that to make things easier in commerce our Courts should be in a position to accept this also, that when it is stipulated that a Bill has been duly presented by the business undertaking itself, regard should be had to that, and this red tape of a notary as well as a land owner or occupier with two witnesses should be eliminated.

Those are a few thoughts I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, but I should like to express my gratitude and pay tribute to those concerned for having consolidated this Act. It facilitates things for us and it is uniform and practical. Our banks in general welcome it and the future will show that the labour of the Minister and the Department will be appreciated. If the Act can be amended in future, I hope these matters will receive the Minister’s attention.

No one wants to oppose this Bill or to quibble about it, except the hon. member for Pretoria-Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl). For myself, I thought this was a very pleasant change to have before this House a Bill which did not call for any party or political approach, but the hon. member for Sunnyside obviously thinks differently. He tried to make a political issue of it by criticizing the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) for doing what was precisely his duty as a member of the Opposition in a democratic Parliament. I think it was a sorry demonstration of lack of experience of parliamentary procedure on the part of the hon. member. The tabling of White Papers in the case of a Bill like this is traditional in parliamentary practice and the use of Select Committees is equally well established practice. In fact, what the hon. member for Sunnyside has done is to make out a very good case why this Bill should have been referred to a Select Committee. I hope, therefore, that he at any rate has convinced the hon. the Minister that that would have been the correct procedure to adopt. Then the hon. member would have had an opportunity of raising the matters which he has raised, and they might have been dealt with and considered by the Select Committee, which could get expert advice from outside in dealing with the problem. I am sorry that the hon. member’s lack of knowledge of Latin should make him critical of making use of Latin phrases which are not only concise and apt but which are used and well understood throughout the whole of the commercial world. Sir, trade and commerce are not confined to the narrow ambits of South Africa alone. Bills of Exchange are an internationally accepted method of dealing with financial transactions in trade and commerce. I am sorry for the hon. member but it seems to me to be perfectly correct and right that the terms which are well known and well understood and accepted throughout the trading world should be maintained. Sir, the hon. member got rid of a lot of views in dealing with the Bill. I do not intend dealing with those remarks of his; I hardly think this is the place to do so. Those remarks would have been apt in a Select Committee where you not only have the opportunity to air such views but to get the advice of experts in dealing with the matter. But I leave it to the hon. the Minister to deal with that aspect of the hon. member’s speech. He gives me the impression of being somewhat ambitious to follow in the hon. the Minister’s footsteps. I leave the matter there.

I think the hon. the Minister would have been wise if he had adopted the procedure that was adopted last session and if he had sent this Bill to a Select Committee for consideration. It could easily have been done. The Bill was read a first time on 6 February and there was ample time in which to submit the Bill as a whole to the Select Committee—possibly the same Committee that dealt with the main additional portion of the Bill last Session. Speaking for myself I think it is unfortunate that changes other than those recommended by the Select Committee of last Session has been included in the Bill. I say that because the law on Bills of exchange has thus far had a remarkable history of what I should call freedom from legislative intervention or legislative attention, and this is so because, in the words of an official witness who gave evidence before the Select Committee last year—

That is indeed high praise from somebody who is not concerned with the political issues, who views this Bill and the law on bills of exchange as they should be viewed, and I think it is a complete answer to the criticism of the hon. member for Sunnyside. It is because the bills of exchange law has had this high prestige that the Department itself has always been prepared to leave well alone. We therefore find that few changes have been made. It is very highly specialized legislation, and I think it is well left alone. That is my criticism of the Minister for not sending it to a Select Committee, even for the lesser changes which have been made, a few of which the hon. the Minister has dealt with. Sir, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, the law on bills of exchange in South Africa was modelled on the British law of bills of exchange. The first bit of legislation in South Africa goes as far back as 1862. It has worked so well that only on four occasions since Union has it been found necessary to introduce minor changes and amendments. What is taking place now is not strictly a consolidation of the law on bills of exchange; it is rather the telescoping into one comprehensive measure of four pre-Union laws on the subject plus the four Union laws which apply to one or other of the pre-Union laws. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, although all four pre-Union laws were modelled on the British legislation, there were differences in each, and it is extremely difficult to determine how those differences are now being reconciled in this comprehensive measure or to find out to what extent this telescoping process will affect those differences. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not exercise that same care in regard to this Bill by seeing that difficulties of this nature were removed. This is a highly specialized piece of legislation. I can only say that one must be cautious because you tamper with it at the peril of commerce, trade, banking and finance. I know of no other law on our Statute Book which allows for the smooth running of trade, internal and external, as does this bills of exchange law. Paradoxically every single member of this House has some knowledge of the law of bills of exchange, but I am quite sure that I do nobody any wrong, not even the member for Sunnyside, when I say that cumulatively all that knowledge just remains “a little knowledge.” As you know, Sir, in most matters, but certainly in a matter of this intricate nature a little knowledge is indeed dangerous. I have indicated that this is something more than a consolidating measure as is contemplated in the Standing Orders of this House, numbers 54 and 70. The safeguards which are provided under that procedure are therefore absent in the case of this Bill. One must therefore accept on trust from the hon. the Minister that the changes which have been introduced will also stand the test of practice and of judicial interpretation, along with the old provisions of the Bill. I hope however that this comprehensive measure will also adorn the Statute Book and will in time also be looked upon “as amongst the best conceived and the best tried legislation on the Statute Book.” I accept the Minister’s statement in regard to the additional recommendation which was made by the Select Committee last year about doing away with receipts on bills of exchange. I share the hon. the Minister’s views that in time practice alone will eliminate that. Sir, as my hon. colleague has indicated, the Bill will have the support of this side of the House at the second reading.

As the hon. member who has just sat down has said, this measure will, of course, receive the support of this side of the House in principle. In principle I submit that there is no more complicated law than the laws relating to Bills of exchange and promissory notes. I am sure the hon. the Minister who is an eminent silk in his own right would agree with that. This uncertainty and differing law that we have in the Republic is something which I think we must do away with as soon as we can in all the spheres in which this operates. I think that in this sphere this is perhaps more necessary because of the interchange to-day of these notes from one province to another. But, Sir, this Bill affects Natal more particularly than it does any other province, because, as the Minister has pointed out, where there is a difference in the law, usually it is a difference between Natal and all the other provinces.

You must remember that it is three to one.

Yes, I do remember that. I had to deal with Bills of exchange when I practised at the Bar and I cannot pretend that I know very much about Bills of exchange. In fact, the people who are usually one’s clients in Natal are the people who know more about it than the person whose advice they come to seek, nl. the Indian merchants. The Indian merchants, so far as I am aware, deal almost exclusively, in their dealings with one another in the Grey Street area, in promissory notes and bills of exchange— mostly promissory notes—and I think the Queen Street branches of the banks there must be the banking experts in promissory notes in the Republic. It is particuarly because in Natal the practice and the law are going to change so much that I am so disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not put out a White Paper and has not referred this Bill to a select Committee.

You have a completely new law before you.

That is just what we do not have. The hon. member who has just made that interjection was the chairman of the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill last year, and he knows as well as anybody else that this whole concept of bills of exchange, the laws relating to Bills of exchange and promissory notes, are so extraordinary and so complicated and so unfounded apparently in any sort of normal processes of legal thought that one has the greatest difficulty in grasoing what they mean. Indeed the Select Committee said in its report that although it was agreeable to recommend the amendments to the legislation which were pilt before it in the draft bill, nevertheless it said that it felt that they were not necessary at all. Sir, this is the state of affairs that we have in relation to the laws on bills of exchange. We have a Select Committee saying. “Yes we think you should pass legislation, but we do not think the legislation is necessary because we do not think in fact, so far as the law is concerned, that any change is really warranted.” But the banks’ practice was such that the banks insisted that they would not change their practice unless the law was changed. Sir, this is the sort of impasse in which we find ourselves with this law. This Bill particularly needs to go to a Select Committee. If the hon. the Minister felt, as he obviously did, that the amending Bill of last year, which only amended the law relating to the endorsement of cheques should go to the Select Committee, then surely this Bill should go to the Select Committee.

Sir, let us have a look at this Bill. It is a Bill “to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes”. But we have in this Bill the new format of amendments used, where words in bold type in square brackets indicate omissions proposed by the Minister on introduction, and words underlined with a solid line indicate insertions proposed by the Minister. Sir, it took me a long time to discover which of the various Colonial Acts we were dealing with here was the original to which things were being added and from which things were being taken away. It seemed to me that the Transvaal law was the one to which all these square brackets and solid lines referred. I was quite wrong in that regard because as the hon. the Minister indicated 3 bis was taken out and 3 bis obviously should only have applied in Natal. So we have a document which purports to be something which is being amended; it has square brackets indicating omissions and solid lines indicating insertions, and nobody knows from which Statute omissions are being made and into which Statute insertions are being made; and indeed whether it is being taken from one Statute and put into another, or whether it is something that the Minister’s Department has taken out of the air and put into all of them, one simply does not know.

It is a very difficult Bill to read, and the only way in which you can properly read it would be to take all four Colonial Statutes, to put them all before you, to look at the Bill and then decide in what way this has been changed. But it is even worse than that because. as the hon. the Minister indicated, the wording of the Statute has also been changed. Although the law is as it was and always has been and is just a translation of the centuries-old custom relating to these matters, the wording has been slightly modernized or slightly jazzed up, but in the result are any changes made? Sir, this is precisely what a Select Committee ought to look at. If the hon. the Minister were introducing a normal consolidating Bill …

You do not indicate in a normal consolidating Bill that this part comes from this Act and that part from another Act.

No, that is so n:

The Bill is certified to be a consolidating measure by the law adviser.

Of course, the hon. the Minister is quite right, but what he overlooks is that if in any Bill you have words in bold type in square brackets indicating omissions, then you know that the words omitted appear in the Statute referred to in the Bill which is being repealed, and there is usually one Statute, but here we have four different Colonial Statutes.

Let us have a look at some of these things. There is 3bis, for example, to which the hon. the Minister himself pointed; it relates to inland and foreign bills. Obviously that comes out of the Natal Statute, but how is anyone to know that but for the fact that reference is made in it to Natal? You have a number of these examples on page 5. There you have a solid line drawn alongside (3)(c) and (d), indicating that these two paragraphs are insertions proposed by the Minister. Let me quote them—

Sir, these provisions already appear in the Cape legislation but I do not think they appear in the Transvaal legislation, so this leads me to believe that the basic law which is being inserted here and subtracted from and added to is the Transvaal law, because those provisions did not appear in the Transvaal law. But how is anyone reading this to know that that is the position?

Anyone in the Cape reading this might think that this is something new. In fact, in the Cape this is not something new; these provisions have always been there. But if you look at the Bill you would think that this was a new provision which was being inserted. Who decided that these provisions should be applied to the Transvaal? Why was it decided that this should happen rather than that these two paragraphs should come out of the Cape law so as to conform with the Transvaal law?

There is another example on page five. Clause 5 (2) (c) refers to a bill which may be drawn payable “to the holder of an office”. If this was properly done then the words “for the time being” would have appeared; paragraph (c) would have read “to the holder of an office for the time being”. But there is no indication here that those words have been omitted although in fact those words have been omitted in some of the Statutes. I appreciate that it is almost impossible for the hon. the Minister to say in Committee right now, “This is what the Natal law says; this is what the Transvaal law says: these words were left out, and this is the reason for omitting them.” But, Sir, it is not even indicated here that these words were omitted. Then in Clause 5 (3) the words “or a person not having capacity to contract” are underlined with a solid line, indicating that these words are being inserted. This sub-clause reads—

This is a most important change in the law. It is a most important thing that any bill should ever be treated as payable to bearer, especially if it was not intended that it should be payable to bearer, as is the case here. This is a most important change in our law. This is in the Cape law already, so anybody in the Cape looking at this might think that this was something new; he would not know merely by looking at the Bill. The more one goes through this Bill the more one finds examples of this kind. Then there is another example on page 19 in Clause 39 (1) (c). In the Natal law—and this is the only difference between the four provinces—after the word “executor” there appear the words, “or personal representative”. Those words do not appear here; they have been taken out. I think it is probably proper that they should be omitted, but that is not the point. The point is that it is not even indicated in this Bill that those words are omitted from the Natal law. Perhaps if it was indicated where it was, we might be able to find out from which law it was omitted and from which law it is not being omitted. I think these are all reasons why in this case there should at least have been a White Paper.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is within his power to send this Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. It is within his power still to produce a White Paper, and I do believe that the House is entitled to do it. I do not believe that there is any member in this House who is able to know merely by looking at this Bill how the rights of his constituents are being changed; how the practice in his province is being changed, because the Bill itself does not indicate that at all. If this Bill were not referred to a Select Committee then anyone who was really interested would be entitled to get up in Committee of the whole House on every single clause and say, “How is this being changed; what is the position in Natal; is the wording the same?” You see, Sir, we are dealing with four different laws of in effect four different countries because that is what the four provinces were. We are dealing with four different, separate and distinct laws relating to four different and distinct areas.

I want to say that they are aspects of this Bill which appear to me to be very good changes, although I have only been able to see a little bit of the Bill. There is the whole question, which the Minister would know more about than I. of “valuable consideration” and “redelike oorsaak”; there is the case of Conradie vs. Rossouw and all those old cases; and all the difference which existed between Natal and the rest of the country have now been resolved once and for all, and I think quite properly so.

Natal is on the right path; it is becoming Nationalist.

You know, Sir …

Order! The hon. member need not take notice of interjections.

Sir, I bow to your appreciation of the worthiness of that remark. On page 15 there is another amendment in Clause 30. Clause 30 (5) provides—

The words “if he thinks fit” appear in square brackets. Of course, if you were in the Cape and you knew your bills of exchange law you would know that that was already in the law in the Cape, but if anyone in Natal reads this Bill he might think that this was something new that is being inserted. This is a most important change. Why is this change being made? The position is that in some place in the Republic—I happen to know that it is in the Cape but there is no indication in the Bill that it was the Cape—you could formerly add your proper signature if you wanted to do so; you now have to add your proper signature. This is a most important change. The whole of the law on bills of exchange has been built up out of commercial practice.

If it is so important, why was it optional?

It was not optional; that is the whole point. In some places it was optional; that is now being taken out.

Why was it optional?

That is what I want to know. Why was it optional in some places and not optional in others? In a Select Committee one would find out that it might have been in Natal or it might have been in the Transvaal but no one would really know about it.

Sir, I want to say in all sincerity that looking at this Bill it is not possible for the people of Natal to know how the law in Natal is being changed, and the people in Natal who are mostly concerned with bills of exchange laws are the Indian merchants. I believe that they deal more in promissory notes than any other class of person in the Republic.

They know more about it than you do.

Yes, I have already acknowledged that. This Bill does, of course, take away much of the Natal law, and I hope the Minister will indicate why it is that Natal has suffered so badly. I have not been able to find any aspect of Natal law which has been preferred over the law in the other provinces. It is true, as the hon. the Minister says, that it is three to one, but the Natal law is founded upon the English law as all our bills of exchange legislation is, and this Bill will affect a number of people there.

Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will be convinced by what he has heard from this side of the House that a Select Committee could far more easily and far more properly deal with this Bill than the full House, and would be able to expedite the passage of this Bill through the House.

There is one last matter that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Clause 101 provides—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the laws specified in the Second Schedule are hereby repealed.
2. (2) Such repeal shall not affect the validity of any instrument which, at the commencement of this Act, is valid according to any law so repealed, or of any thing which, according to any such law, was validly done prior to such commencement.

What it does not do is to indicate how and when and where the liability of parties to a note or parties to a bill is going to be affected. This Bill is going to become law when the State President affixes his signature to it. On that day it will become law. The Bill provides that any notes that are made or bills will be valid; the repeal of the laws will not affect their validity, but it might affect the liability of either the endorsers or the makers of the bill or note as the case may be. One of the matters I have in mind in relation to Natal is the question of joint makers of a bill and accommodations bills. That is something which is peculiar to Natal. As the Minister knows where joint-makers in Natal, and only Natal, sign a bill or a note in the form: “I promise to pay”, they are jointly and severally liable on that note, and only in that case. In any other case the co-makers of a bill are only jointly liable. In the rest of the Republic they are jointly and severally liable on that note. There is nothing that I can find in this Bill to indicate whether the makers of such a bill or note are going to be protected and whether their liability is going to change. The bill is going to be valid according to Clause 101 of this Bill. That is fine, but when this Bill becomes law their liability will change according to the law. I might say, Sir, I have not been able to find the particular clause in the Bill which deals with this, but this is the law at present. What is going to happen? Are those people who thought they were jointly liable, those people who signed a note not made out in the form “I promise to pay …”now to become jointly and severally liable at a date after this Bill becomes law? I hope the hon. the Minister will give that his consideration. This is something which is of great importance in Natal to the merchants and particularly to the Indian merchants in Natal who make a habit of signing notes jointly. The Bill ought to provide for this.

Generally this Bill has been well received. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), has voiced some complaints. I want to say at once that if there had been any change made in the law as it existed in one or other of the provinces I would have felt it necessary to issue a White Paper. I have the assurance that every single clause in this Bill appears in one or other law of the various provinces. The only thing hon. members can complain about is “why do you take this from one province and why do you take that from another?” Hon. members must remember that the various dates of the colonial legislation differ. The changes are all based on the same prototype, the Bills of Exchange Act in Great Britain. But there are certain minor discrepancies although they are not important. Very often it is a question of the language. Take the two most important ones. Hon. members will see that in effect the difference is not very extensive. Take Clause 57 of the Bill. As it reads now we have taken the form of the Transvaal, the Cape and the Free State. The Natal law says “A Bill is discharged by payment in due course if such payment be made by or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor”. We have now added “or pro tanto by payment of part of the amount for which the Bill is drawn, noted by endorsement on the Bill”. That seems to be such a natural thing; if it is not in the Natal law it ought to have been there.

Did you say “pro tanto”?

Yes. In Natal a bill is discharged by payment in due course on behalf of the drawer or acceptor. That is certainly not the practice to-day. You can also do it pro tanto provided you notify them. That is considered to be one of the most important changes here.

Take the other one, Clause 62. It means the same in effect; it is just a question of the wording. In Natal it read: “If a bill or an acceptance is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable on the bill, the bill is discharged, except as against any party who has himself made, authorized or assented to the alteration, and subsequent endorsers …”

It now reads: “If a bill or an acceptance is materially altered, the liability of all parties who were parties to the bill at the date of alteration and who did not assent to it, must be regarded as if the alteration had not been made.” In effect it amounts to the same; we are approaching it from a different angle.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) spoke to me about his Bill. I admit when you look at it it looks very formidable. I confess I did not go into details. I was prepared to accept that this was a consolidating measure.

The Minister has just said that every Clause covers existing law. Can the Minister explain why the certificate issued by the law adviser states that only 75 out of the 102 Clauses are existing law. What is the position in regard to the remaining Clauses? This certificate has just been handed to me since this debate started. It states that 75 Clauses do not affect the existing law in any way. What about the other Clauses?

I have just explained. In the case of 75 Clauses the form is the same in all four provinces. The other 27 are the examples I have just given. Mr. Speaker, we are now having the festival of Shakespeare and I think “Much Ado About Nothing” would probably be a very appropriate title to this debate! I can quite understand the difficulty of hon. members. We had to deal with a very peculiar position. I give hon. members the assurance that this Bill is nothing new except for the recommendation of the Select Committee. All the other Clauses are in one or other of the Colonial legislations.

I consider it almost as an excess of zeal on the part of the legal adviser for having done all this underlining and for putting in all these square brackets in the case of the 27 Clauses because those underlinings and square brackets do not really indicate anything new that is being introduced. There was simply a difference in the wording between one province and another province and he very faithfully indicated it, but there is no tampering with the old law. The old law is still there. It is only where there has been a difference in the wording between one province and another that we have asked ourselves what the actual banking practice was to-day. I asked independent people to give me personally the assurance. I want to assure hon. members that had there been any change in existing law, apart from the recommendations of the Select Committee, I would have issued a White Paper and I might have considered sending it to a Select Committee, I at any rate, would have given much more attention to it. The real difficulty is that we are dealing with a very particular problem of consolidation. The legal adviser has done his best to indicate very faithfully every small departure, even if that departure is only from the law of one of the provinces.

He has not done that.

I applaud the hon. member’s provincial patriotism but if the legal adviser has indicated “here I have preferred Natal; there I have preferred the other three provinces” what purpose would that have served?

One would have known how the law was changed in Natal.

That is not the point. The point is what is the law? You will find in most cases the law as it stands now gives expression to the practice that maintains in this country. Who, for instance, considers the difference between an inland and a foreign bill of exchange.

That is an extreme example.

But that shows you. That is the law. There is no tampering with the existing law or anything of that kind. It is only perhaps that we dealt over faithfully with the problem of consolidation. The hon. member wants to know where did this come from and where did that come from. Surely anybody who knows the Natal law will be able to see immediately that this is something which Natal has not got in the same form or that is something which Natal does have in the same form.

I am glad about one thing, Sir, and that is that in this whole debate there has been no criticism of the contents of this Bill. We have been criticized for not having sent it to a Select Committee which would have been totally unnecessary. I have been criticized for not having issued a White Paper which I would have done had the existing law been changed. One does not usually issue a White Paper on a consolidating Bill. The hon. member for Durban (North) has devoted a lot of time and study to this Bill. I can almost say that I think he could have devoted that time and study to a better purpose than this Bill. Had he come to me as the hon. member for Constantia had done I would have told him that there was really nothing in this whole Bill. I can assure hon. members that there is not a single point in this Bill which is a departure from existing banking practice in the Republic. We are simply trying to attain the very great object of consolidating the slightly differing details in the various provinces in order to have legislation for the whole Republic.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) has made some very interesting remarks. Like the hon. member for Durban (North) he too has apparently devoted much time and study to this Bill. I can also say to him that he could perhaps have devoted that time and study to better purpose, because this is a consolidating measure; we are not examining here whether the law. as it has existed all these years, is good or whether it is not good. If we had done so we would, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said, have been tampering with the existing law, and that is not our intention.

I just want to say that no legislation is needed to provide for the setting aside of a particular amount of space for signatures. That is a matter which can be dealt with administratively. The other proposal which the hon. member made and which I want to mention here concerns the question of language. The hon. member said that the language of this Bill should be more simple and that the Bill should contain fewer Latin phrases. But I wonder if he can translate the terms authentica si qua mulier and senatus consultum velleianum into Afrikaans? These are old Roman Statutes which are known by these terms, and they are terms which cannot be translated. As far as his complaint is concerned that the language is not simple enough, may I tell this House this little story. When the Bills of Sale Act was passed in Britain in 1893, there was a strong movement that the law should be framed in simple language and not in such cumbersome, long-winded legal language. The Minister concerned then gave instructions to that effect and the law was drafted in beautiful, clear and lucid language. But this Act, drafted in simple language, resulted in more litigation than any other British Act. These Latin expressions are necessary; they are stereotyped terms which have been interpreted judicially from time to time. These expressions must be retained therefore if we are to have any degree of certainty under the law. If we do not retain these expressions we will only create the same sort of uncertainty and the same sort of difficulty that was experienced in the case of the British Statute to which I have referred.

The other points raised by the hon. member are not really relevant here, but if an amendment appears to be necessary, then his proposals will be taken into account. In the meantime, if he feels that he is justified in doing so, he should get in touch with the bodies concerned, particularly the banks for example, so that they can make the necessary representations if they are of the opinion that amending legislation is necessary, and we shall then consider such representations.