This is the clause which provides for the continuous and non-continuous service which must be done by members of the Citizen Force. As we pointed out during the Second Reading debate, we are agreed on the extension of the overall commitment to a spread of ten years. We accept that position in so far as other ranks are concerned, who will continue to do a maximum actual period in camp of not more than 12 months spread over that period. However, we feel that the commitment which is imposed upon potential leaders of a camp every year for nine out of the ten years of their commitment is placing an unnecessarily heavy burden upon those who are selected as leaders. We accept the need for them to do more training than would be required of other ranks. We accept the need for a greater commitment, and to that extent we have no objection to the extra month which is proposed during their first year. We also recognize that in the subsequent periods there should be additional training for officers and N.C.O.’s over and above what they will do when they are called up for their normal 26 days’ camp. But we feel that to ask them to attend a camp for nine out of ten years means that they will have no opportunity during the first ten years of their lives after school to enjoy a normal holiday and to take their families away if they are married unless they are prepared to take unpaid leave from their firms. Therefore, although we recognize the need for making additional demands on them, we propose to limit this demand to two years out of every three. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name on page 587 of the Order Paper, which gives effect to this proposal. It reads as follows—

It in fact takes the Minister’s period of 15 months for officers, which he outlined in the original second reading debate and places that in the legislation. The Select Committee placed a limit of 16 months in the proviso to subsection (3). The Minister stated in his introductory speech that the intention was that officers and N.C.O.s should in fact do 15 months. We accept that statement by the Minister. We accept that that was and is the intention, namely to have an overall limit of 15 months, and therefore we move to put it in the legislation so that we do not have the Minister saying 15 months and the law saying 16 months. In this case we therefore move to delete “sixteen” and to insert “fifteen”. In regard to the non-continuous period of training, our amendment deletes two of the five 12-day periods to which officers and N.C.O s will be subject, meaning that they will then do seven camps in the ten years of their commitment. I do not want to argue it any further at this stage in case the Minister has reconsidered the matter and is prepared to accept this amendment, which still gives additional training to officers and still keeps them on the 10-year commitment, but which enables them in one year out of three to know that they will be completely free of any camp commitment in that year. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to my amendment.

I want to point out that if one calculates the total period laid down in this clause during which an officer or a non-commissioned officer has to receive training, one finds that over a period of ten years it amounts to 16 months and 18 days. The officers who appeared before us on the Select Committee made it quite clear to us that they regarded this period as the minimum, or at least that the period of 15 months mentioned by the Minister in his speech was regarded as the minimum period they needed to train an officer who might be in charge of a regiment if trouble broke out; in other words, we need at least 15 months to train an officer before he reaches the stage where he is ready to take the field. Members of the Opposition have now asked that we should limit this period to 15 months. The only objection we have to that is that the Defence Force is given no latitude in case they want to train certain officers for a slightly longer period and want them to receive a little more specialized training. We were prepared to give way as regards the question of one month, in other words, to say that we give way as regards the question of 18 days and to fix it at 16 months in order to allow that latitude of one month. But I think it is unreasonable of the hon. members to deprive the Defence Force of this latitude of one month for which provision is being made in the Bill in case one would like to train an officer for a slightly longer period. I think it is wrong to argue about a matter of one month and 18 days which may possibly be used. I think we are splitting hairs while we are considering a very important matter here. For that reason I feel that we should stick to the apeal that is being made, namely that we should grant the Defence Force this latitude. We cannot really achieve anything by removing it from the Bill. I just want to say, too, that it does not mean that the full periods which are mentioned here will be used. We have been told that in certain years people will be allowed not to be called up, but this is the maximum which is laid down in the law and I am of the opinion that we should stick to that maximum.

We have not suggested that this is not a maximum period which will be available to be utilized by the Supreme Command if it thinks it desirable to do so, but while the clause stands as it is now there is no certainty that at any time during the ten years of service a man will have one year free from continuous camps. But I want to ask the Minister to deal with this from another approach. Is it realistic at the moment to legislate for these camps which are for every man who is on service in the armed forces, and not only officers, because this clause applies to the whole force? Let us assume that the annual intake is 9,000 new men in the Citizen Force alone. If we pass this legislation as it is, after ten years there will be 81,000 men who must be in camp each year and for whom facilities must be provided, in addition to the 9,000 intake who will do the full nine months or ten months during that particular year. That will be the effect of this legislation in ten years’ time. I do not think that is what is envisaged.

I believe that one of the reasons for the reluctance of men to serve and to continue serving and to accept responsibilities in the Citizen Force on a purely voluntary basis is that this threat is over them, and will be in future even more so than it is at the present moment, the threat that they will not have one year free, in which there will not be a continuous camp. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this request—which is a very modest one—of the hon. member for Durban (Point). It is to allow the man to know that one year out of every three he will be free to make his own domestic arrangements about his leave and his vacation and what he is going to do in that particular year when he is free. I do not think it is an excessive request and I do hope the Minister will see his way clear to accepting this amendment for the sake of a build-up of a better morale amongst and better support from those men to whom we are looking to serve in the Citizen Force.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister will give favourable consideration to this request of ours. All of us have to admit that the officer and the non-commissioned officer who are leaders in the Defence Force should receive additional training. But in terms of this legislation our men will be committed for ten years. It is very important that the officers and the other leaders who have to serve the extra time accept it in good spirit. They should be keen to serve for this extra period. They should not want to do everything they can to evade their obligations. If our amendment is accepted it will mean—as has already been shown—that the persons concerned will be free one out of every three years. They may then attend to their own affairs. In the first year the men will be called up for one year. In the second year they will be free. In the third year they will have to go to camp for 12 days. In the fourth year they will have to go to camp for 26 days. The following year they will be free again, and so it will go on. That is the effect the amendment will have. Whereas in terms of our proposal they will be free every third year and will not have to go to camp in that year, they will be free for only one year out of ten in terms of this legislation. We should bear in mind that particularly during the last few years of this ten-year period many of the men who receive training will be men with families. They will have childeren. They will also have other obligations to meet.

The hon. member for Pretoria West said that the first period of training would last 12 months. In practice, however, it will never be 12 months. It simply is the position that from about the 15th of December and during the first week or ten days in January not much is done as far as training is concerned. That means, therefore, that we can only rely on approximately 11 months’ training during the first year. We know it is the object of this legislation to provide only ten months’ training during the first year to the class of person we are discussing now. I would prefer us to make more use of this first period of 12 months if more time for training is needed. Let us then rather call up the men for 11 or for a maximum of 11½ months’ training, instead of for ten months. Whether a person is trained for ten or 11 months, he has lost a year in any case. I ask the hon. the Minister to view the matter in this light. I would be the last person to deny that more training is necessary. Let us therefore provide more training in the first year. After all, the person is committed to his training for the full year. Then he may be given the opportunity to be free every third year.

Mr.Chairman, the original Bill in effect provided for a period of 16 months and 18 days. That was not laid down specifically, but that was the effect of the measure. After the Select Committee had considered the matter, they felt that a maximum period should be laid down, and that is why this Bill now provides for 16 months. The hon. member says he regards this period as unfair. I want to appeal to the hon. member not to use terms which are too strong in this connection. The whole spirit of this Bill is one of flexibility.

Although I may not refer to evidence which was submitted to the Select Committee and which has not been published, I want to state that the fact that the Chief of the Army appeared before the Committee was reported. I accept for myself that he informed the Committee of his problems. The Chief of the Army has certain practical difficulties, which I now want to mention for the sake of the record.

Order! Would the hon. the Minister not rather tell us what the Chief of the Army himself told him, instead of telling us what he thinks the Chief of the Army told the Select Committee?

That is what I am going to do now, Mr. Chairman. I accept, however, that what he has told me he would also tell to other people particularly when he was examined by the Select Committee. For the sake of the record I now want to put the matter very clearly, because I do not want any confusion about it to exist in the country. I do not think we should by our attitude create the impression that we are acting in an unfair manner.

Now, what are the facts? The facts are that every person will serve for one period of 26 days in every cycle of three years. In practice that means that the total number of available men must be divided by three. Only when we have built up an overall strength of 100,000 men—something which can only be done gradually, as hon. members probably accept— shall we call up approximately 33,000 men every year, which is more or less the number of men we now call up every year for training. This is the first significant fact; every person will serve for one period of 26 days in every cycle of three years. I now want to state very clearly why we cannot do away with the five compulsory periods of service of 12 days each during the nine years following upon the long period of continuous service in the first year. I want to mention this for the sake of the record so that we shall be absolutely clear as to what the attitude of the Defence Force is. During the first ten months of service all that the Army can do is to train a useful but still inexperienced young assistant field-cornet. During the next nine years he has to be trained further so as to be able to serve as a captain or a major in the Citizen Force at the end of the period of ten years for which he is liable to serve. After that, as at present, we shall have to continue to rely on voluntary extended service in the Citizen Force in order to train commanders and other relatively senior officers of our Citizen Force. If we bear in mind that in every period of 12 days there will be at least one weekend and that time will be lost in admitting and discharging the men, we realize that only eight effective days will be left for training purposes. The intention is that part of the training should be done by means of correspondence courses, for the very reason that this period of training is so short. For that purpose special departments dealing with correspondence courses have already been established at Army Headquarters. It forms part of the process that in theory the person is already being trained by means of correspondence courses. The hon. member for North Rand will know of the department which is already being established. During the first period of 12 days the young leader’s theoretical knowledge will be increased. During the next 12 days he will be afforded the opportunity of applying his theoretical knowledge further in practice by handling full-time or Permanent Force units. In the third year the junior officer and officer should be able to command their own units with greater self-confidence and competency during the period of 26 days he will attend the camp, and ought to be ready for promotion to higher rank. During the second cycle of three years the process has to be repeated for training to higher ranks, so that officers may, for example, during the second period of 26 days in which they will attend a training camp, be prepared for promotion to the rank of captain. The same process repeats itself during the last cycle of three years, with the result that some officers may be promoted to at least the rank of major at the end of that period, that is to say, after ten years’ service in the Citizen Force.

If these requirements are taken into account, it is clear that a reduction in the short periods of 12 days will create practical problems as far as the training programme is concerned, problems which can be overcome only by relying on voluntary service. In practice this has proved to be impossible. This is the attitude adopted by the Chiefs of the Army and with which the Supreme Command agrees. I think we should allow ourselves to be guided by these people, who have to deal with the practical problems—in any case, it would be preposterous for us to take it upon ourselves to regulate these practical matters on the basis of a discussion lasting only a few minutes when this Bill has already been examined by a Select Committee. If we were to do so I do not think we would be acting in a responsible manner. The obligation is being imposed on the corps of leaders in order to prevent employers from compelling Citizen Force leaders to use their vacation leave for the purposes of military service. If a Citizen Force leader should in future prefer to use his vacation leave for that purpose he would be doing so out of his own free will. In view of the particularly short periods of training during the years in between those years during which the men will have to attend training camps for longer periods, it cannot be seriously alleged that these commitments will cause severe hardship. Moreover, non-commissioned officers and officers receive better remuneration than privates, although, as I said yesterday, serious consideration is being given to the possibility of granting increases in pay on the basis of the number of years of service. That is an undertaking I have given the hon. member.

In view of this exposition, which really represents the attitude of the Chiefs of our Defence Force, together with the undertaking we are now laying down in the Act, namely that it will not be more than 16 months, I think we should allow the Army to have that latitude. We shall try to apply it as equitably as possible. For us to place a restriction on it at this stage without our being able to foresee precisely what results it would have, would be rather irresponsible of us. For that reason I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, however much I should like to meet him. I therefore want to leave it at what I feel we should first test in practice.

The arguments of the hon. the Minister in favour of the provision as it stands are arguments which I can understand should apply to junior officers. The problem of getting sufficient officers voluntarily for the Citizen Force is one which we recognize—in other words, I can see the difficulties here. But once an officer has reached the rank of captain, there should be no shortage thereafter of people willing to serve of their own free will in higher ranks. We need have only one major for a larger number of junior officers and, furthermore, we need not have the same number of majors, captains, lieutenants, and second-lieutenants—it is a pyramid, i.e. building up to the top. This means that as the rank goes up the number of incumbents decreases. The period of training of 12 days during the first cycle will bring officers up to the rank of first-lieutenant. Then there will be a camp for bringing them up to the rank of captain. But by then you would need less captains because you have already got your lieutenants trained as potential captains. Surely, from there onwards we can rely on volunteers?

When we argue over the period of 15 or 16 months it is academic. We have taken the figure of 15 months because the Minister used it. He said that was what was wanted and what would be done. So we accepted that figure. The real argument, however, is whether we should have three or five years of 12-day camps. The Minister’s arguments are strong in so far as the earlier periods are concerned. But I fail to see why every lieutenant, or field-cornet, has to be trained for 10 years for the rank of major. Surely, by the time we have established our officers corps and have created the right spirit and the right atmosphere, we are going to have more than enough competition for the higher ranks? We are not trying to sabotage the intention of this legislation—we are merely trying to ensure that when we make demands upon our youth—which we do without any hesitation—we should try to limit those demands to the essential minimum. Here, of course, it is a question of a difference of opinion between what the Army regards as being essential and what we of the Opposition regard as essential. The Army is setting a higher target than what we regard as being absolutely essential. I don’t blame them for it—as a matter of fact, I would do exactly the same if I were chief of the Army: I would go for the best which in my judgment was necessary.

Why then squeal?

Because we in Parliament are not concerned solely with the ideal—we are also concerned with what is right and what is best. So, it is our view that sufficient training can be given in the period proposed by us. Furthermore, it will not detract in any way from the effectiveness of the legislation or from the efficiency of the Army—we are simply trying to limit something which now goes a fraction too far. It is, therefore, purely a question of degree and not of principle. The principle we accept. It is the degree on which we differ. Our proposal amounts to giving two more free years—the equivalent of one in every cycle. Alternately, let a man do all his 12-days camps in the early period of his training so that if in the latter part of 10 years he has a wife and family to look after he can have two clear years in between his last two months’ camps. It is, therefore, not a difference of principle. We are, in other words, not totally opposed to what is being proposed now—we only feel that it is not entirely essential. Seeing that we are calling up many of our youth we want to try to limit the demand wherever we feel it is possible to do so without harm to the Army.

Whilst on my feet, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another provision, a provision on which we should like to hear his views. Subsection (10) lays down that no service for a shorter period than the liable period shall be recognized unless with the approval of the Minister. And there are similar provisions in later clauses right through the Act. I will rather deal with it here under one head. Where a person has done service and towards the end of his service period, on compassionate grounds or for medical reasons or for any other reason, he then gets deferment or leave for that period, I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that where most of the service has been done or a reasonable proportion of it, that it will in fact be recognized. Your service is compartmentalized, in other words your basic training, your unit training, and so forth. Where a person has completed a cycle I feel that he should be entitled to recognition for it.

My reply is yes.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that. That leaves us with only one point of difference, namely the question of the five periods. We feel that it goes a fraction too far and we would rather have experimented the other way. You can always extend the period and you can always shorten it. But rather than frighten people off by putting in front of them a picture of a greater commitment than in fact is going to be asked for, I will rather give them what is actually going to be asked for. That is why we propose the 15 months. We do not wish to frighten people with this legislation. We would rather take people with us so that nobody feels that an excessive amount is being demanded of them.

The hon. member is persisting in the attitude he adopted, even now that the hon. the Minister has given his reply. I want to point out that we have to use very complicated weapons in modern warfare. In other countries the periods used for training are much longer than those we propose here in South Africa. We know that in Britain voluntary service was abolished completely. To-day Britain relies solely on a full-time army because it is said that it is no longer possible for volunteers to be trained well enough for the specialized warfare of today. In view of the fact that a large proportion of our youth is going to serve in our Defence Force—100,000 men—we cannot afford to entrust them to the care of officers who have not had a thorough training. Seeing that the Defence Force now says that this is the minimum period it needs and that it wants this latitude in case it becomes necessary, I cannot see why the hon. member persists in this attitude. I think we owe it to the people to appreciate and to uphold this attitude adopted by the Defence Force. We would not want to send scores of our young men to go and fight while our officers are not well trained. For that reason I want to make an appeal that we should accept this clause as it stands.

Order! I just want to point out to hon. members that these speeches are merely a repetition of previous ones. I shall not allow it any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond briefly to the reply given by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has just said that the Chief of the Army appeared before us and stated what the position was, and that we should not tamper with his scheme now. I want to say immediately that all of us were very much impressed by both the Chief of the Army and the evidence he submitted to us. On behalf of this side of the House I may say that he inspires great confidence. We therefore do not want to tell him at this stage how he should carry out his duties. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, all that we are trying to achieve is that our trainees should rather come forward voluntarily and willingly.

That point has been made repeatedly.

Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. There is one other matter that was raised by the hon. the Minister and to which I should like to draw his attention once more. The hon. the Minister explained that as far as the 12-day period was concerned it was the intention to afford the officers and other ranks the opportunity to prepare themselves for the next camp. The Minister mentioned an important point there, namely that during that period of 12 days quite a few days are virtually wasted with the men arriving and departing. It is a very short period. The hon. the Minister indicated clearly that he was not going to accept our amendment. Now I just want to ask him to submit the following point to his Defence Force Chiefs, and that is to see whether it would not be better for the men to go to camp for three periods of 20 days, instead of for five periods of 12 days. Then they would in any case have them for a course—a longer period—a year before the camp is due. However, the period will remain 60 days. I hope the hon. the Minister and his Department will give the necessary attention to this matter and that he will perhaps accept this suggestion in the Other Place.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40:

I referred to selection boards during the Second Reading debate. I will just say briefly what my objection is to the clause as stated here. I think it is not sufficiently precise to say “… not more than four other members”. That is not sufficient. Here we are dealing with selection boards and they are subject to the criticism of public opinion. These members are representatives of the public generally. I think a clause of this kind should indicate the bodies of citizens from whom these members will be chosen, or better still, by whom they will be nominated. The following are the bodies I have in mind, namely the South African Legion—I am not giving a complete list, and there are many more that can be added—and city councilors. Here I am speaking on behalf of my own area, the Witwatersrand. Then there are trade unions, teachers’ associations and I am sure that hon. members could add another dozen. I think a clause of this kind should be added.

I personally do not like the proposed section 67 (3). We in South Africa are privileged to belong to any church we like, we can follow any denomination we like. In this clause, however, certain persons who belong to certain religious denominations are exempted from military service. Supposing we all join these churches, who is going to do the fighting? Are we all going to sit back peeling potatoes and cleaning camps?

To serve our country when we are at war should not only be regarded as a duty but as a privilege, and I cannot for the life of me see why anybody should have the moral right, for any reason whatsoever, whether it be political or religious, to say, “I am not prepared to serve”. Why should my son be obliged to go forward and face the enemy when other young men stay at home? I do not believe that this is necessary and although, being a good democrat. I will not vote against it, I want it to go on record that I do not agree with it. Sir, I hope that we will not be involved in the near future in a war, but if a war breaks out and the Minister cannot use me for anything more useful I hope he will put me in charge of these boys. Sir, I will keep them busy; they will do good work and they will like it, and waging war will be like a Sunday school picnic in comparison with what they will have to do.

The hon. member for Kensington referred once again to the question of the constitution of the selection boards. We cannot lay down in the Act that certain group interests should be represented, because circumstances differ from one place to another. A selection board in Durban, for example, will quite probably be completely different from one in Pofadder: surely the hon. member will understand that?

What is wrong with Pofadder?

Pofadder is a small village which probably lacks many of the group interests referred to by the hon. member, and for that reason one has to be guided by the circumstances of the specific place in appointing the selection boards. There is the question of distance and area and all the factors which have to be taken into consideration. There is also the question of the availability of people to serve on the selection boards. For that reason I think it will be very risky to lay down here which group interests shall be represented and to bind ourselves by doing so. I think we should rather make the provision flexible. We shall give thorough consideration to the constitution of the selection boards, because a great deal is going to depend on the selection boards. I feel very strongly about that. Right at this stage I want to say that I hope the selection boards will not allow themselves to be misused by people who want to evade their obligations. The Defence Force knows that I feel very strongly about that. The selection boards will have to be very strong. They will have to consist of people who perform their duty with the utmost diligence, but the constitution will differ from one place to another.

As regards the hon. member for North Rand, I just want to say that I think this clause is an improvement on the old provision. I think the hon. member will concede that.

Yes.

Well, then we have at least advanced one step. The hon. member knows as well as I do that if one starts tampering with people’s religious beliefs, one is dealing with inflammable material, and I do not think that at this stage we should try to go any further than the provisions of this clause. I think we have made great progress by incorporating this principle in the Act, in order that this may not be used, as in the past, as an excuse for not meeting one’s obligations. Such a man will now have to serve in some other capacity. For the while I think we should let this matter rest with the progress we have now made.

I have no desire to pursue this matter. My point was that the clause was not sufficiently precise. The clause says “not more than four other members”. That leaves the discretion completely in the hands of the authorities. The clause does not say “and four other members chosen from representatives of local bodies” or anything of that kind. However, I will not pursue the matter. I do not wish to detain the Committee.

Sir, under clause 40 I can see the difficulty.

Order! I am not prepared to have two clauses discussed at the same time; I am putting clause 39 first.

On a point of order, we have before us at the moment clauses 36 to 40 in one block, so 36, 37 and 38 have not yet been put.

It is impossible for the Chair to refer to clause 36, then to clause 37 and then to clause 40. I am altering the procedure now. I take it that the clauses up to 38 have been agreed to and clause 39 is under discussion now.

Clause 39 put and agreed to.

Clause 40:

I can see the difficulty under clause 40. It is not only the young man himself; it is his home environment, his parents and their outlook on life. Naturally a young man has to have that in mind. I have known cases where the young man himself would like to serve but in deference to the wishes of his parents he is not prepared to do so. The suggestion I made in the Second Reading debate would cover these cases. Everybody would be subject to the basic 12 months’ training before being put into special courses. If you have a man of this kind he would serve in another capacity in civilian life in the interests of the country. That was my suggestion but I will not pursue it. This difficulty will always remain as long as you have compulsory service.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 44:

I would like to refer to subsection (1) (a) and to the words “such deferment or exemption is justified in order to prevent the interruption of the course of educational study of the person concerned”. Sir, we have had experience of this for many years under the ballot system. Exemptions and deferment became a racket. Every member of Parliament bas had this experience. I have no confidence in this whatsoever. Paragraph (a) says “in order to prevent the interruption of the course of educational studies of the person concerned”.

Order! I wish to point out that the only amendment proposed is that the word “citizen” should be altered to “person”. I think the objection raised by the hon. member should have been raised when the original Act was introduced.

I am speaking about the question as to whether deferment or exemption is justified “in order to prevent the interruption of the course of educational studies of the person concerned”.

That is exactly what I said. The only word which is being amended is “citizen”; it is being amended to read “person”.

Sir, I want to speak about the clause as it stands.

That is the existing law; that has been passed already.

On a point of order, Sir, this clause is before the House at the moment. Apart from this amendment it contains other amendments which broaden the scope of the clause to apply it to all persons instead of citizens, and it brings the Minister of Defence into the picture as regards consultation. I respectfully submit that we have before us a clause for discussion and that we are being asked to approve of this clause as amended. We are being asked now to vote for what is printed in the Bill and I submit that we are entitled to discuss what we are being asked to vote for.

My ruling is that the discussion in Committee must be confined to the amendments before the Committee, that is to say, the words which are underlined.

Very well, I will do that. Under the Bill before us, it is no longer a citizen but a person we are considering. My case is that every person we consider has his education continuing all the time, and we are not considering only some persons who are in the middle of a school course or a university course. That is all I have to say. I think this is useless in helping us to provide a good and fair system for everybody.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 48:

This clause makes provision for any person to participate voluntarily in the activities of the commandos. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that now that the commandos are being turned into proper units and they will have officers appointed and not elected and that they will be part of our Defence Force in the true sense, this idea of associate membership should be done away with and instead there should be established, under the aegis of the Department of Defence, shooting clubs which will perform the function of providing an opportunity for people to learn and to practice shooting. Into this organization could be brought existing shooting clubs, which are purely private clubs at the moment, so that they could have the benefit of purchasing ammunition and becoming conversant with the use of weapons. Those people will all be of use to South Africa in an emergency because they will know how to use weapons. To those clubs could belong those who to-day use the commandos simply as a shooting club without being part of it in the military sense. They could form a very valuable link in the Civil Defence organization for which the Minister is also responsible, whereas a person who participates as a voluntary member, almost as a spare wheel to the commandos, not only undermines the concept of the commandos as a real military unit, but he sets a bad example to those who are forced by law to participate fully in the activities. They see one person enjoying the privileges without the unpleasant side of it, without the compulsory side of it. They ask why he should have these benefits when they have to go to camps and do guard duty. If you took the voluntary shooting aspect away completely and assisted the shooting organizations under the Civil Defence legislation, that would make this clause unnecessary. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would be in the interests of those who like shooting and who are useful to the country and it would also be an improvement to the commando system as such.

I just want to comment briefly on this clause, and what I have to say ties up with what was said by the previous speaker, although we may perhaps see the matter slightly differently. In any event, we have the interests of the same people in mind. With regard to what the hon. member said, there is this problem. To establish these independent shooting clubs, means that those people must have ranges, and to build ranges costs a great deal of money. What the Minister and the Supreme Command have in mind here is to afford an opportunity to these people who are still interested in shooting, and I think people who have completed their service, and people who would like to render service but are unable to do so, such as M.P.’s and Senators, to continue practicing shooting. But the advantage is that this division is still under the control of the Defence Force, under the control of the commandants of such a commando, and it also enables these people to use those Defence Force rifle ranges, because all the rifle ranges of the commandos come under the Defence Force. Now a Defence Force range is used under the supervision of Defence Force men, but private shooting clubs may not practice shooting on Defence Force ranges, and in such a case there would be no supervision. What also ties up with this is that the South African National Target Shooting Association is also a statutory body which comes under the Defence Force, and I would prefer it if the hon. the Minister could consider extending this clause in order that wider powers may be given to the South African National Target Shooting Association. I should like to support this clause very strongly. Through this clause an opportunity is afforded to every man in the country who wishes to practice the art of shooting.

But I should like to go even further, and I want to make this suggestion to the Minister and to the Supreme Command. Should it not be considered that every member who is subject to commando service …

Order! The hon. member should have raised that during the Second Reading. I cannot permit it here.

Then I shall leave it at that.

As regards the attitude of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I want to say that this is a clause on which I have very strong feelings, and I myself was at pains to have it inserted like this. I have many sentimental reasons for doing so. I think we should take care. There are some of our older people who can no longer serve as commando members under the present system and who can no longer be active in the ordinary sense of the word, as members of the Defence Force under the ordinary provisions of the Act. But we shall have a rebellion among those older people if we simply push them aside. I know of many such cases. To establish a separate organization would simply mean that one would take the extra responsibility on oneself to have them organized. But in the second place, for many good and also sentimental reasons one wishes to allow those people to participate in something in which they still want to take a part, namely in handling rifles and shooting. Then I think we should at least see to it that this same discipline which applies to the commando on the rifle range should be applied to those people, otherwise one would have chaos. And it must be the same people who enforce that discipline. That is why I thought this would be the best way of doing it.

How can you mix the two?

But we are not going to mix them. It can be arranged. But I want to warn that particularly as far as the platteland is concerned, there will be very serious trouble if we simply push these old people aside and tell them that they are no longer needed. I am not prepared to do that.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 57:

I do not wish to waste time repeating arguments we have had in the Second Reading. I move the following amendment—

I only want to add, that the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate gave as his reason for this clause the need to protect the security of South Africa. We accept that and that is why we have worded our amendment quite differently from the one which was moved in the Select Committee. This now means that all that it will be necessary to show to prove the commission of an offence is that the report in fact created a danger to our national security. It will not be necessary to go into details or to disclose secret information. But we cannot accept a blanket provision which we believe would create suspicion and seal off our Defence Force from the people of South Africa. We do not believe that the amendment we have proposed in any way takes away from the requirements which the hon. the Minister has outlined. It gives him the power he wants, but it does not prevent legitimate and normal reports. These may be detrimental and may refer to matters which are not always pleasant but it is in the interests of South Africa that the public should know about them. That is preferable to rumours growing and spreading, and becoming distorted as they spread.

I should like to give an example which the Minister and his staff will remember. A year or two ago Durban was seething with rumours. It was said that deaths were occuring by the dozen; first ten and then 20 men were supposed to have died in a military camp. I took the matter up immediately. The reports were naturally denied and the Press were able to publish the facts and the denials. An investigation was held and it was found that there had indeed been a foundation of fact on which many of the rumours had grown. But it was the disclosure in the Press which enabled that spate of rumours—almost of panic —amongst parents to be destroyed. Had this measure been in force then those rumours could not have been disproved because all that the public would have received would have been an official hand-out which they, frankly, would not have believed.

Why not?

Because the official handout given in this case I refer to was a denial that any of these things were true. Only after a full investigation was it found that in fact some of the allegations were true. People do not accept hand-outs. We must have a degree of freedom in the Press which gives the public confidence. The same position obtains in our information services. We just do not get official statements across to other countries. In the same way official statements do not put people’s minds at rest. There must be free discussion. The public must have the right to go to the Press to put their complaints and to put their point of view. We accept—and that is why we on this side have moved the amendment as we have—that they should not be able to say things which will harm the security of South Africa. But where security is not involved, where it is a grouse or a grumble, something which is of no importance to our security, the public should have access to the Press—the right to put their complaints and to have them aired publicly in the Press. If a mother is worried about her dear little boy who is not getting the right food in the camp, let her write a letter to the Press and say that “My poor little boy is not getting the sort of food that he is used to at home”, or “he is not getting put to bed by his mother and his pillow straightened for him”. Let them complain and they will soon be ridiculed by other people who will then put the facts as they are. I do not see why we should close our Press to the person who wants to make use of. for instance, the correspondence columns of a newspaper to express a complaint.

We on this side feel that provided security is protected we should leave the door open to other reports which do not affect security. I want to say to the Minister that in all the discussions that have taken place on this clause three instances only have been named as examples of why this clause is necessary. Those three instances were quoted by different people in different circumstances. But it is always the three instances only. The one case concerned a false statement about a ballotee, then there was a false report about troop movements, and the third instance had something to do with South-West Africa.

If that is all that has happened in all the years that we have been living in crisis-times, if that is all the harm that has been done to South Africa by this sort of report then are we not taking a sledge-hammer to kill a nit or a gnat? We are putting on our Statute Book powers which I believe go far too far, and therefore I move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Chairman, as one who was a practicing journalist for many years and who frequently had to write on military matters, I want to admit right at the outset that this is a far-reaching prohibition. We admit on this side that it is a drastic measure. But now the hon. member for Durban (Point) should have regard to the particularly unique circumstances of South Africa. I want to say at once that I am glad that the hon. member has shifted his ground somewhat since yesterday. He now admits that it is necessary; that the net should be spread very widely as regards the prohibition on information which can be published and which is harmful to the country.

Our position is quite different from that of overseas countries, for example America and Britain. The hon. member mentioned the example of America specifically. America is a large country, of course, and it is understandable that a leak of military information could occur much more easily in that country than in South Africa. In addition the rights of the Press are also safe-guarded by their constitution, as the hon. member knows. Circumstances in America are therefore quite different from those in South Africa.

As far as we are concerned, I feel that to place a far-reaching measure on the Statute Book is better than to deliver ourselves knowingly to our enemies, in our difficult and vulnerable circumstances. For example, we simply cannot allow the same to happen to us that happened to Israel and Egypt during the past few days. We saw how the front pages of newspapers set out very prominently exactly what the strength of the defence forces of the various countries was.

You do not really think our enemies do not know what our strength is?

Yes, but why should we spread it about by enabling the Press to broadcast this information in the finest detail? I simply cannot see why we should allow anything of the kind. The hon. member should also bear in mind that our methods of warfare have undergone drastic changes in the past few years. Thus military information can now leak out much more easily through indirect channels, for example by deduction, than previously. Our Defence Force people must now be much more mobile. They now move over much larger terrain than in the past, when only conventional combat methods were applied.

I now want to give a hypothetical example. Say, for example, an American soldier is involved in a motor-car accident near Peking. The question may then be asked why he was near Peking. Was he there on a secret mission? What was he doing there? If that is true of America, surely it is also true of South Africa? All kinds of deductions may be made from a simple report in the newspaper. Nowadays there are spies everywhere, and they are wide-awake. In a small country like the Republic, which is very vulnerable, we have to see to it that as many loopholes and leaks as possible are closed up.

On top of this there is also the fact that the Communists and the Pan-Africanist Nationalists have taken an oath to destroy South Africa. I therefore feel that we simply cannot afford any leaks.

As the hon. member for Kroonstad pointed out very clearly yesterday, it is stated quite clearly in this legislation that no prosecution can be instituted except on the written authority of the Attorney-General. I therefore fail to see why the hon. member for Durban (Point) should be worried that trivial matters will be taken up. During his Second Reading Speech and again yesterday the Minister said repeatedly that he would appoint a Press liaison officer. It is my hope that he will be a trained journalist and a person who also knows the politics of the country, so that he may always contact the Press as quickly and efficiently as possible, and without delay. Dissatisfaction may possibly arise in this regard if the newspapers of South Africa request permission from the Defence Force to write an article on the Defence Force and a month or even longer passed before they achieved finality. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to enable the Press liaison officer to act quickly, if it is at all possible.

In the last place the hon. the Minister stated very clearly that a list of topics would be drawn up. Because the Minister told us that this Act would be applied in a flexible way, I am convinced that from time to time he will make additions to the original list which is now to be issued to newspapers with regard to cases which are brought to his attention and where the national security is not jeopardized. And I think it is in this spirit that we should accept the section, and I think it is also in this spirit that the newspaper owners did not object to this section, in public in any event, through their official organ, the Press Union, but explained the implications of the section to all the different members of their organization, the different newspapers, by way of a circular. As far as I know, it was generally accepted. I therefore hope that the Minister will not make a concession in this regard and that we will keep the section as it stands.

I would like to support the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (Point) in this matter. I think hon. members must appreciate that we have in this clause agreed to an immense extension of the blanket of secrecy. Previously the only secrecy was in time of war. Now at one fell swoop we as a House, and we are unanimous about this, have agreed to preserve the selfsame secrecy in time of peace as in war. I think once one has said that, one must immediately realize that one should scrutinize whether in time of peace in fact it is necessary to have quite so much secrecy as in time of war. The limited qualification which is being suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is, I suggest, the very least we should do to preserve our balance in this situation. I go so far as to say that l believe the advantage of a measure, certainly the measure pleaded for by the hon. member for Durban (Point), far outweighs any disadvantage that could befall our forces as a result of any publicity. It must be remembered that limited publicity enables the forces themselves to realize where there is perhaps error or neglect or criticism, and it enables them swiftly to counteract that. If one is operating in a complete vacuum of secrecy, matters can develop which can go far further than is healthy. And I do not believe that they come to the attention of the authorities so well. People are, it is true, prepared to go to their public representatives occasionally, but in general that is considered a fairly drastic sten. They are much more inclined perhaps to write a letter to the Press, or something of that kind. If there is this limited publicity, as I say, it enables the services themselves to remedy these matters before they go too far. You will never be able to eliminate rumour completely and if rumour actually comes forward and gets to the distance of being in the Press, that then can be nailed. If it is not brought into the open in that way, it can continue and do far more harm. Take this one example given of this ballotee in South-West Africa. The report in connection with this ballotee was apparently quite false, and the fact that it could be denied and shown to be false went, I would say further to restoring confidence than any harm that was done originally. If people have the feeling that the activities of the forces are behind this wall, I believe that we can lose a great deal. The hon. the Minister said that he would release certain topics that could be discussed ad lib. But surely in time of peace that is going very very far. It serves to cut the people off from the forces, it serves to create in people’s minds the suspicion that something may be going on about which they know nothing, and that all may not in fact be well. And so, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that even if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this particular amendment, although I do hope he will accept it, he will search hard for an appropriate loosening of this secrecy in order to preserve the benefits of discussion. I want to stress that in many countries, indeed in this country too, we strongly believe that the light that can be thrown on matters through the Press and the other ways mentioned, has inestimable benefits. And I want to stress that if we pass this clause without any qualification, this will place one Government department virtually, one section of our executive arm, in a position completely different from all the other sections of the administration. We have the Police in respect of whom nothing, anything like so extensive operates, and yet they are in fact carrying out very extensive operations in South-West Africa, most need fully. I do believe that this goes very much further in time of peace than is required, and I do hope that we can have still the fresh air of publicity on these matters of relative importance, always subject to the overriding security which we fully accept.

Listening to the hon. member for Pinelands, I really get the feeling that the hon. member is not as ignorant as he pretends to be. We should really not bring absurdities into a debate. Surely the hon. member is a grown-up? I am also thinking of the absurd examples mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Durban (Point). “Just imagine”, he said, “this clause provides that the marriage of a Defence Force man may not be reported!” Is that the kind of argument we should use in a debate?

That is what the law does.

No, that is not correct, for who would ever take action against a newspaper, and what Attorney-General would be so crazy and so foolish as to say that a newspaper is jeopardizing the security of the country if that newspaper reports on the marriage of a Defence Force man? Surely we are not an insane nation or an insane state? Surely there is such a thing as reasonableness? Let us consider the facts. And I direct this particularly at the address of the hon. member for Pinelands. When I introduced this Bill I took Special pains to remind hon. members of the fact that we are living in times when the dividing line between war and peace is no longer clear. Does the hon. member not understand what that statement means?

I understand.

Then does the hon. member not understand that the South African Defence Force may operate under circumstances when it may not become known that it is operating?

Yes, that is true.

If that is true, then why does the hon. member advance this type of absurd argument? Because the fact of the matter is that the publicizing of the operations of the Defence Force under those particular circumstances must be prevented. And that can be prevented only by taking this power.

But what is there in our amendment that makes it impossible?

The amendment of the hon. member makes it impossible, for who is to judge? And the report would be out. In terms of the provision, as contained in this Bill, the Minister, who knows under what circumstances information on the operation of the Defence Force may not be published, could stop it.

But have you read how limited our amendment is?

Yes, I have read it, but in these times a Defence Force may operate under various circumstances. And I do not know whether I should now be forced, in the light of the times in which we live, to illustrate this to the House by way of examples. Then hon. members make it absolutely impossible for me. But surely we are not dealing with children’s games now? We are dealing with the security of our country. Surely we know that we are not concerned with conventional warfare only. Surely we know that the Defence Force may become involved and may perhaps already be involved?

[Inaudible.]

It affects it directly. So far I have treated the hon. member very courteously. But the hon. member should not hold it against me if I now remind him of something. I was prepared—and the hon. member knows that—to inform the Leader of the Opposition of my motives. Is that true?

What motives?

On the motives behind this provision. Is that true?

[Inaudible.]

Oh no, it was passed on. It was passed on by a representative who had an interview with me. I said that I was prepared to interview the Leader of the Opposition and to inform him of my motives.

I do not know what the tenor of the discussion was. But I do know that there was a discussion.

And I was not afforded that opportunity. In fact, I was prepared to inform all members of the Select Committee. The hon. member will know that I invited him specifically. But he was engaged that afternoon and could not come. Then I called another hon. member who had also served on the Select Committee. I gave the hon. member examples. I have therefore gone out of my way. Would hon. members now force me to illustrate this kind of situation by examples, here in public?

Our amendment does not affect …

It affects it directly. I have gone out of my way with this Bill, and I have taken hon. members into my confidence. But hon. members are now making it difficult for me. Because the impression is being created that I want to be a small dictator over the Press, which I do not want to be. I have said this repeatedly. I appreciate the tremendous responsibility I am accenting. I appreciate that it is a drastic measure. For that reason I have given one undertaking after another that we will meet the Press as far as possible. We will create machinery through which we can feed the Press. We do not want to exclude the Press from our activities. But for the sake of the security of the country there must be control over reports. Now the hon. member says that we have mentioned only three examples. But we have mentioned three examples to substantiate our case. I could continue and give the hon. member at least half a dozen other instances which occurred in the year I have been dealing with Defence. There are things which involved us in the greatest difficulties on the international level. Afterwards we had to remedy matters on the diplomatic level. These were matters which were bedevilled by Press reports.

Overseas Press reports.

No, also South African Press reports, because they were initiated here. And get this quite clear, I am not accusing the Press men. I am not holding it against them. I think it is part of their work. But naturally I cannot tell the whole story to every newspaperman who calls me at half-past eleven on Saturday night—and they call me as late as that, and I have no objection to it—and give him all the facts of the matter, whole delicate negotiations on the matter are perhaps in progress. And if I show the slightest hesitation, a whole sensational report is published on it, as has happened in the past. These are things which have landed us in serious difficulties. This kind of thing is not child’s play. If the hon. member had given me an opportunity to inform him when I invited him—I appreciate that he was engaged that afternoon, and I do not hold it against him, but I do think that he could have created a later opportunity—and if the hon. members had accepted my invitation, namely that I would inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition properly, this debate would not have been necessary. I regret that I am compelled to say this. But I have gone out of my way to obtain co-operation, also on this particular clause. In the light of that I hope hon. members will act wisely and not raise any dust now. Let us accept that there are no motives here other than the interests of our country. Secondly, let us accept that the spirit of co-operation with the Press will be confirmed. Thirdly, we shall not try to create absurdities in terms of this provision. The mother who wants to complain about her son’s food will still be able to complain as much as she likes. That is not what this clause is about. But the hon. member’s suggestion is not going to meet my problems, because then the Minister would have to prove it, and for very good reasons he is sometimes unable to use those proofs. Surely that should be clear. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to the members of the Opposition now, to act in this respect in the spirit in which they have so far acted in respect of the rest of the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt that if I make this anneal to them they will still accede. I do not mind their voting against the clause. I have not the slightest objection to their voting against the clause. That is their right. But do not let us ascribe any motives and make an issue of a matter which should not be made an issue of.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal immediately with the statement of the hon. the Minister for the sake of the record. The hon. the Minister is fully aware that he sent a message that he would like to see me at a time when I was engaged in a debate and could not leave the Chamber. He saw another member on our side of the House and had discussions with him. I appreciate the problems which he put at the time. I do not wish to take it any further and all I want to say is that we have specifically gone out of our way to meet the Minister in regard to the problems which he has. We have specifically and deliberately so framed our amendment so that it does not in any way cut across the difficulties which we accepted were real ones. I do not wish to deal with those difficulties any more than the Minister does. We had no intention whatsoever of blocking legislation to deal with real problems. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will now give blanket permission to the Press under this clause which will enable it to disclose and deal with matters affecting individuals in their training camps and in their day to day life in the Army, without reference to him—also matters like their treatment, their food and their conditions. Is he prepared to allow those things to be written about without reference to him. That I think is the test. That is the test of whether this clause is solely to deal with security which we accept and over which we will not argue. Is this clause basically to deal with security or is it being broadened to create a blanket to close off the Defence Force from any sort of publicity. If the hon. the Minister will give clear authority now that he will not regard as an infringement of this clause criticisms and reports which will reflect on the Army but which do not in any way deal with military activities, with security, with movements of troops—i.e. with South Africa’s security in any way—that there will be no limitation on reports on normal things which have always been regarded as free to be reported, then I think we can reconsider our attitude. I repeat that we are not opposed to limitations being placed on reports on any matter affecting South Africa’s welfare or South Africa’s security. All we are not prepared to accept is a legal provision which would enable abuses to be hidden from the light of day. That is all that we are seeking in the amendment we have moved here.

Both the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Pinelands based their arguments on three points. The first is to keep the way clear so that rumours may keep circulating; the second point is that they underlined the words “in peace-time”, and the third point is to throw light upon Defence Force matters. If it is attempted to clear the way for people and to help them to circulate rumours, I just want to say that it is not nearly good enough. In terms of this clause any newspaperman who hears a rumour has the right to approach the Commandant-General or the hon. the Minister and to have the rumour investigated, in order to get to the truth. Therefore that point falls away.

As regards the argument advanced by the hon. members of the Opposition on the question of “peace-time”, they forget what the hon. the Minister said yesterday, namely that in these times there is virtually no dividing line between war and peace. Where do they want to draw the line? They do not define it. As regards their third argument, that Defence Force matters should be brought to the light of day, I should like to illustrate my reply by referring to an article which appeared in the latest Sunday Times. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether he read it. Here a fine article was written by Mr. Carol Birkby, with photographs by James Soulier, a very neat piece of journalism which cannot be improved upon. The readers as well as the members of the air force who appear in this article must have derived great pleasure from it. No matter how well-meant this article was— and I am not criticizing the newspaperman; he was unaware of it—it released certain basic information which in my opinion should not have been released. Mr. Chairman, during the past week we have read many newspaper reports on military operations in the north, where an enemy air force was wiped out on the ground as a result of information which was disseminated, and the good use that was made of it. That merely shows how effectively information which is obtained timeously can be used by the intelligence branch of a defence force. What does this article tell us, scattered in between the lines? Here we are told that the helicopter squadron is called “Squadron 17”, that its headquarters are at Ysterplaat, outside Cape Town—the precise location is indicated—that its commander is Major Tatham, that the squadron has two wings, one at Bloemfontein and the other at Swartkop; that the helicopters in use are the French Alouette Ill’s and the Alouette III’s, designed for rescue work, patrols and anti-guerilla operations.

Is that a secret?

It is information needed by enemy spies, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) may laugh if he wishes. The article also mentions that the Westland Wasp is used from the decks of our Navy frigates. All this is information that spies would very much like to have, on the deployment of our very important helicopter squadron. In times when there is such a thin dividing line between peace and war, the hon. member wants this information made available, squadron for squadron and regiment for regiment, to give the enemy a complete picture of the make-up of our Defence Force.

Any spy can see that we have helicopters.

The attitude of the hon. member gives me very serious doubts about the sincerity of the Opposition’s intentions in claiming that they support this Bill. I want to ask the hon. member whether this practical co-operation and assistance which is now to be given to the Press by the authorities, as the hon. the Minister said, will not be much better than leaving these matters uncontrolled in order that all kinds of rumours may circulate. The hon. the Minister has made it very clear that the necessary channels will be established. The only practical difficulty I foresee is to find a suitable person for the post of military liaison officer. A combination of an experienced newspaperman and an authority on military matters is something rare, but since the hon. member for Durban (Point) has become so National in recent times and knows so much about the Press …

Order! The hon. member is now going beyond the scope of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude. I know that with a few exceptions the South African journalists cherish the interests of our Defence Force and of our country. I know that they are capable of excellent work with great responsibility; I know that it is the sincere endeavour of the Commandant-General to make it easy and possible for them, within reasonable limits, to do their military reporting well. I am convinced that with the sincerity and goodwill of both parties, i.e. both the Defence Force and the Press, this apparently stringent legislation, as far as the Press is concerned, will stimulate the quality of military reporting rather than to detract from it, as the hon. member believes, particularly if the newspaper staff selects a special responsible man for their military reporting, and if the Defence Force authorities remember that the great enemy of the newspaperman is the clock—the “deadline”—and that nothing frustrates a newspaperman as much as a series of meaningless “no comment” replies all along the line, even to the most trivial routine inquiry.

Order! The hon. member is going much too far. If such a wide discussion were to be allowed, the discussion on this clause would take a week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have finished.

To think that the hon. member who has just sat down, should be my Member of Parliament!

Bad luck.

I must really say, I am bitterly disappointed in him.

One of his voters is quite as bad.

He got up here and mentioned what had appeared in the Sunday Times on some of our units. Does he think for one moment that those facts are not known to our enemies? Every enemy who is worth his salt knows much more than the information which appeared in that article. Our enemies know the finest details of our military strength. Does the hon. member not know that?

Did you vote for him?

Never! Mr. Chairman, what worries me about the clause in its present form is that it creates the impression that we want to stop all criticism and information on our Defence Force.

That is not so.

That is so. The hon. member for Tuffontein, who is an experienced journalist, told us that this clause was very wide and very drastic. Well, we accept that. We should not create the impression that we want to make a secret of everything relating to our Defence Force. I would go further; I should like to see the Press give our Defence Force as much publicity as possible. There are many matters regarding our Defence Force that we should keep a secret, but the more one makes a secret of any matter relating to our Defence Force, the harder the enemy agents try to obtain that information. It is the most difficult thing in the world to keep anything of real value a secret. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) told us what has happened in the last few days, but he was wrong. The information to which he referred and which was made known to the world was not the cause of what we may describe as the “Pearl Harbour” inflicted on the enemy forces. The information available to us is still very confused, of course, but it is quite clear that what happened was that the Israelis found certain gaps in the screen and exploited those gaps. If there is anything that should be kept a secret and that any responsible person will keep a secret, then it is in fact information of this nature.

I mention this, Mr. Chairman, just to show how difficult it is to keep secret anything which is really valuable.

Sir, I do not think the hon. the Minister was quite fair to the hon. member for Pinelands or to this side of the House when he said that this amendment of ours did not meet his difficulties. We ask in our amendment that the words “in regard to national security” should be inserted after the word “or”. Surely that covers everything? If certain information which affects our national security is published, action can be taken, of course. We say that this provision is a drastic provision. It creates the impression that we want to permit no criticism of our Defence Force. I repeat that what I should like to see is as much publicity as possible for our Defence Force. The other day, in his Second Reading Speech, the hon. the Minister mentioned the case of a certain supply depot on which a report appeared in the newspapers, and he said that that could not be tolerated. The hon. the Minister is correct; that should not be so. But does the hon. the Minister think for one moment that if we built a large oil tank, for example …

May I ask you a question?

Sir, I have only a few minutes left. Supposing we decided to build a large oil supply depot at Pofadder, for example. No information may be published about it. but hundreds and thousands of people work there and know what is going on. It must leak out; it will leak out, whether or not the newspapers write anything about it; the world will know about it. I do not think that argument by the hon. the Minister holds any water.

Sir, when I read the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) I was amazed at his moderation. I came to the conclusion that since he has been on that Select Committee he has suffered a “sea-change into something rich and strange”. He has become a different kind of man from what he used to be. What is he asking? He is simply asking for the insertion of the words “in regard to national security”, and why the hon. the Minister should become emotional about it I do not know. I expected him to say immediately “I will accept that amendment”, because the addition of these words makes his own clause stronger. I would have liked to have criticized this clause but in deference to the wishes of my colleague I am not doing so. Sir, what does this subsection we are discussing say? It says, “it must not be calculated to alarm or depress members of the public”. I will give an example of what hon. members on the other side have said that will alarm and depress members of the public. They keep telling us, from the Prime Minister down, that we are fighting a cold war. But it does not seem to alarm or depress them; it seems to elate them from what I can see; they seem to become more cheerful. People are not narrow in this way when they are considering their patriotic duty. A Prime Minister once said: “I offer you blood and tears, toil and sweat.” What was the response of his people? They said: “We are in the final now; all the other teams have been knocked out.” This kind of thing that the Minister talks about here does not alarm or depress people. Why the Minister cannot say right away that he accepts the amendment I do not know, because the words are “in regard to national security”. I appeal to him to accept the amendment and let us get on with the work.

Yesterday the hon. member for Kensington behaved so nicely, and see what he is doing to-day! He has also undergone a change since yesterday. It is not only the hon. member for Durban (Point) who has undergone a change. What does this amendment say? It says: “In line 45. after ‘or’, where it occurs for the first time, to insert ‘in regard to national security’.” In other words, the newspaperman himself may now decide whether he thinks it relates to national security. He may write about it, and if he is taken to task, he will say he is sorry but that he did not think it related to national security. Then, if action is taken against him, the onus of proving that it related to national security rests on the State, and then it may be that in the process the State will have to furnish certain information which it is not very eager to give. That is the point, and for that reason I cannot accept it. In the first place the responsibility to decide whether or not it affects the national security is taken away from the Minister and placed in the hands of the newspapers; and, secondly, the Minister is then forced, if he takes action, to reveal the very things which he did not want to reveal. [Interjection.] Now the newspaper knows that it has to get permission, and I said I would meet the newspapers by telling them in advance what topics they could write on. The hon. member asked me a question. They may write on food and on complaints about food, and on the marriage, but the newspapers know now that if they come across a borderline case, they are running a risk and they should first obtain permission. That is the difference. I think hon. members will in all fairness appreciate the fairness of this attitude.

Notwithstanding the hon. the Minister’s reaction to my modest contribution, and notwithstanding the fact that he said he would not speak again, I do not propose to refer to his rather surprising reaction to a reasoned argument. But what I do want to stress, more particularly in the light of the Minister’s statement now, is how extremely limited our amendment is.I think hon. members opposite should have their attention drawn to this. This qualification of national security relates to one aspect of one subsection and I want to let hon. members know that in regard to all these aspects that I shall mention now there is no limitation whatsoever, and then I should like to deal shortly with the limitation that we have suggested. There is no limitation suggested at all in regard to subsection (1), which says that no person shall publish (a) any information relating to the composition, movements or disposition of (i) the S.A. Defence Force or any auxiliary or voluntary nursing service established under this Act, or any force of a country which is allied to the Republic: or (ii) any South African or allied ships or aircraft used for naval or military purposes; or (iii) any engines, rolling stock, vehicles, vessels, etc. All those things this qualification does not touch at all. Let me state, furthermore, how little does it touch even para, (b), the paragraph which we have sought to qualify to a limited extent. It will also continue to be an offence to publish any statement, comment or rumour relating to any member of the S.A. Defence Force. We put no qualification on that either. So, strictly, it will not be permissible, as I understand it, to publish that a member of the Defence Force has been in an accident. Notwithstanding that it is so wide, we make no qualification there at all, and so it remains as it was originally.

Do you think the Attorney-General will prosecute for that?

I will come to that. As it stands here, no person shall publish by any means any statement, comment or rumour relating to any member of the S.A. Defence Force or any activity of the S.A. Defence Force or any force of a foreign country calculated to prejudice or embarrass the Government in its foreign relations. So far as I have read now, there is no qualification or limitation whatever upon the powers that have been asked for here, and that covers just about everything one can think of. The sole provision where we have sought to impose a limitation is the one I shall now read, namely to publish anything “to alarm or depress members of the public”. In regard to that single provision only, we wish to insert “or in regard to national security”. So it relates solely to statements (apart from those enormously wide provisions I have already mentioned, and which are not affected) which go a further distance. These statements are a separate category, i.e. statements which, as I say, have this effect of alarming or depressing the public (separate from those which relate to a member of the Defence Force, etc., whether they alarm or depress or not). [Interjection.] Only there do we say that the qualification in regard to national security should be inserted. So I do want to stress that it is a most limited field, and that there is the greatest protection in regard to all those aspects. One might say that this provision which we qualify is almost redundant. I will not be surprised if almost every category could be brought within those others I have already quoted.

The hon. the Minister touched on the question of the Attorney-General’s refusing to prosecute. I concede that that is a safeguard against a foolish prosecution. But at the same time members of the Press are members of an honourable profession, and particularly when it comes to a question of national security they will not want to harm the country. They would want to remain within the law. They will not be satisfied to commit a breach of the law and then to trust to it that the Attorney-General will not prosecute. Therefore it is desirable that they should know exactly what they may or may not publish, and preferably it should be dealt with in the Bill. I know the Minister has said that he will tell them what they can publish; this undoubtedly will guide them. But one cannot help feeling that he will be obliged (because he will accept no limitation on the clause) to allow publication of matters which strictly by the terms of the provision the Press are prohibited from publishing.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 65:

I move the following amendment—

I will deal with this matter briefly, because the hon. member for Durban (Point) and others referred to it during the Second Reading debate. I base my suggestion that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to the acceptance of this amendment on several factors which I believe are material to the efficient building up of the Citizen Force. I do believe that particularly in the junior ranks—and these are really the persons with whom we are concerned—it is the enthusiasm and the leadership of the individual officer that is a matter of vital concern. I believe this is particularly so in the case of the N.C.O. and the junior officer who have direct contact with the men under their respective commands. Command in the Forces, whether as a junior officer or as an N.C.O., carries with it responsibility, and in time of war it carries with it responsibility for the lives of the men, be they a section, be they a squadron or a platoon, who are under the command of that particular officer. In peacetime the effectiveness of the training will depend upon the willing acceptance of responsibility by the person who, as a commissioned officer or a non-commissioned officer, is entrusted with the task. I cannot for one moment believe that any purpose can be served by compelling an individual serving in the Citizen Force to accept promotion unless he is prepared to accept the responsibility. A man of that sort will become a passenger or worse. He is a man who can frustrate the whole of the training of a unit or portion of a unit, and can in that way become the weak link in that unit.

It is not a matter of looking at one individual, but to have an unwilling or an unenthusiastic junior officer in a regiment is as bad as having an unwilling and unenthusiastic hooker in a rugby scrum. That whole scrum will be of no value because of the unwillingness of the hooker, and so it will be in a regiment. When persons are compelled to accept promotion which they are unwilling to accept, that same weakness will arise. I want to know from the Minister in what manner a person of that nature can be disciplined, with all the force of the Military Discipline Code? It has been said that the officers will be required to do a correspondence course during the course of service. They may do that and fail every examination, but how can it be proved that any man deliberately failed the examinations and did not merely fail because of incapacity on his part to pass? Who will be the judge? I believe that in fact this clause will not be used in practice, because of the consequential dangers which will arise to those who are under the command of such a person in time of war. I want to ask the Minister rather to let our junior officer corps and the non-commissioned officer corps consist of men who are willing to serve in that capacity, and not because they have been dragooned into doing it. I hope he will see his way clear to remove this section from this Bill. I am sure that will have the desired effect of encouraging men to join the corps of officers because they will not be with others who will merely have been dragooned into that position.

I want to point out that one of the problems with which the Defence Force was faced under the voluntary system was in fact in the officer category. It was in that category in particular that there was a serious shortage in the Citizen Force and in the commandos, a much more serious shortage than in the subordinate ranks. This clause was inserted in the Bill because we found that under the former position, where we relied on voluntary service in the officers’ ranks, it was not possible to keep them up to strength; it was not possible to keep the units up to strength. That is why this clause was inserted, so that there would be an obligation. I am quite satisfied, as I said yesterday too, that we shall not be able to compel a person to do something against his will. I think one must accept, however, that there has to be some measure of obligation in order to enable us to supplement our officer corps so as to ensure that we will not have to rely on volunteers only. That is the object of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the comparison the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has made is a good one. Under a ballot system men serve voluntarily after their period of service. I quoted yesterday a reply of an hon. Minister of this Government, who was not prepared to grant facilties. In other words, they had difficulties with employers and they had difficulties throughout the country on those grounds. Now this is a different story. They will all have to serve. The question is: Who is going to accept promotion?

We have all heard that one volunteer is worth ten pressed men. I do not agree with that, but I do think that an officer who wishes to be promoted and who accepts promotion is certainly worth half-a-dozen who are pressed into it. I do not think the Department should become a new modern press-gang, saying to a man, “You must accept that responsibility”, if he is unwilling to accept it. We shall have men who are unenthusiastic, we shall have those in training who will say, “Now look here, be very careful here; do not become a success at this game or you will be promoted”. Instead of a man getting C.B. or detention, he will be warned, “You had better be careful—they will make you a sergeant if you go on like this”. Fancy saying to an hon. member on that side: “If you are not careful in the House, if you talk too much and you show ability here, be very careful—they might make you a Minister!” Imagine such a thing happening! On the other side hon. members are all very anxious to accept those positions. They are all very keen even to be appointed to a control board. It shows a very good spirit, and that is the spirit we want in our forces. We want our men to come along voluntarily and say they will serve. But to compel a man to accept a commission, when it is the most serious step in his life, whether he is a civilian or a soldier, is wrong. Any man who has held a commission knows what a serious responsibility it is. He knows that in the old days he could resign his commission. I have heard one of the senior officers in the Force saying, “If I were asked to do that, gentlemen, I would resign my commission”, which was the most extreme step he could take. But what this Bill does is to say, “Do not resign it—do not ever get it!”

I think the Minister must accept the amendment on the Order Paper and delete the section. There is no need to have it. We cannot compel men to become good soldiers in this way. I think it is a great mistake. If we had a system of equal sacrifices where every man served for 12 months as I suggested yesterday, then it might be a different story. But under the system which this Bill provides for, I think this section should be deleted. We do not want these press-gangs.

Mr.Chairman, I am informed that this procedure is in fact applied in other countries on whose systems we have based ours, and that it is applied with very great success.

Such as Egypt.

No. It may interest the hon. member to learn that we were not allowed to make investigations in Egypt. Some of the best defence forces in Europe make use of this system. I am informed that they achieve great success by means of it. I ask hon. members to leave the matter there for the time being. I shall again study the matter over the next few days. If I can be persuaded that it is not absolutely essential, I can try to have it amended in the Other Place. I am not giving an undertaking that I shall in fact do so. but I undertake to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I readily accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister and with the permission of the Committee I withdraw the amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

(Third Reading)

Mr.Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the stage where this Bill before us will be enacted and where we will have a better Act administering the Defence Department than we have had in the past. The hon. the Minister told us that this piece of legislation is better than the one we originally had before us and that it is better mainly as a result of the deliberations of the Select Committee. I think the Minister will agree that it was a very wise move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I think there is another point of great importance as far as the Select Committee was concerned, and that is this. Those hon. members who had the opportunity of serving on the Select Committee had the opportunity of coming into contact with our defence chiefs and of talking to them. In the result I think very useful contacts have been established. The heads of our services who appeared before the Select Committee were very frank and, if I may say so, they acquitted themselves very well.

This measure is a better piece of legislation for this reason. Under the present Act—which is now being replaced—the ballot system was most unsatisfactory, and the reason why it was unsatisfactory was that while we were doing national service far too many people got away without doing service. Far too many people escaped doing their training. That was unsound. When we have national service then we must have national service and everyone must be hooked in.

The service chiefs have indicated to us that they will produce a better defence force. In this measure we are giving them all the provisions they asked for. and we have every confidence that they will now produce this better army which South Africa needs. I want to say at once a citizen force army is not the best way in which to train an army. Modern warfare requires highly specialized people and highly trained people. One can really only produce them in a permanent army. Although many so-called experts advocate a large standing army for South Africa, there are obvious reasons why we cannot have such an army. The manpower shortage and also economics are in issue. We feel the citizen force army is the army on which we shall have to depend. What is more. I think the citizen force army will be able to take care of us, to look after us. Only this week we have had an instance elsewhere in the world of a citizen army who did all right—it annihilated its enemy despite superior numbers and a stronger army. Well, if they can do it, we can do it too. We are training our army not for aggression but for defence and while we cannot achieve the ideal of a standing army I am sure a citizen force army will serve us quite well in coping with any problems with which we might be faced in future.

There remains for us an important task—to popularize our defence forces. In the past too many of our young people were looking for all sorts of excuses to avoid being called up. In addition, there were too many people busy behind the scenes trying to get exemption or deferments. I think we must try to get the public of South Africa to realize that we have national service and that to serve one’s country is not only a duty but also a privilege. We are living in a good country and it should, therefore, be a privilege and a pleasure for each of us to do our share in its defence.

The Minister told us that this Bill will mostly affect our young people. But that is not entirely correct. It is going to affect every sector of our economy, every sphere of our public life; parents, workers, in short everybody shall have to make sacrifices. But primarily our youth is affected and if we could get them to accept this obligation with goodwill, instead of looking at it as a distasteful obligation, we would have gone a long way towards creating the right attitude towards training.

But the Government too can do a little more in the way of making life bearable for these trainees. Let me just mention a few things for the Minister to bear in mind—privileges which these young people should enjoy whilst they undergo training. There is, for instance, the question of free train journeys over week-ends or during periods of leave. Why cannot they be given free rail passages? In addition to making the life of these youngsters easier for them it will eliminate many evils. Another instance: Why cannot they enjoy free postal facilities? I say: Let them post their letters to their friends and their parents free of charge. It is these and other small perks with which we can facilitate life for these youngsters. Another important factor is their remuneration, especially in the latter years of their 10-year training period. By that time many of them will be getting on in life and will have to shoulder responsibilities towards families. For them then to go to camp at a very low rate of pay might cause them hardships. Employers too shall have to make sacrifices. But I do not think these sacrifices should be too much for them. After all, it is the security of our country that counts and this is their contribution towards maintaining that.

It is pleasing to see that this legislation makes provision for the training of immigrants. I do not think they can grouse about that. This is more or less in line with the practice in other countries with a large number of immigrants. In any event, if this country is good enough for an immigrant to come to for a living, he can be expected to carry his share of the responsibilities towards the country. The Minister has stated that other arrangements will be made for those who indicate that they do not want to become citizens of the country. Against that I have no objection. But at the other end of the scale there are those who did do their share and did undergo military training. Let us facilitate their becoming citizens—sooner or easier than those who did not undergo training. This is merely a thought which I want to leave with the Minister.

This Bill also makes an attempt to put our commandos on a proper basis. I think all of us will admit that in the years gone by our commandos could have been improved upon. Now I think the military authorities will be able to make good use of them and get value for the money spent on them. As far as their training is concerned, this left much to be desired in the past. This could be improved upon.

All in all, great demands are being made by the defence of our country, although we should not look upon it as a demand because it is our duty to defend our country. Therefore we must accept that sacrifices are necessary. Therefore I should like to express the hope that everybody who will be affected by this legislation will accept their new obligations with good grace and in good spirit.

By way of courtesy I want to thank hon. members for agreeing to take also the Third Reading of this Bill now. I am very glad about that. I do not want to create any illusion that the practical application of this legislation is not going to present any problems—as a matter of fact, it may still occasion a good deal of brain-racking. I therefore hope that hon. members will exercise patience when we start applying the new scheme in practice. We must not jump to conclusions. Many of these provisions still have to be tested in practice.

The hon. member referred to better facilities for men undergoing training. The hon. member knows, however, that we are already moving in that direction and that we shall do what we can within the financial capacity of the country to arouse the largest possible measure of enthusiasm for training. I already dealt with the new positive approach to immigrants yesterday. I hope that I shall have the co-operation of everyone here in arousing enthusiasm among the parents as well for the training which their sons have to undergo.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker. I move—

This Bill is the result of protracted consultations. In the first place, consultations were held among Government Departments, the four Administrators and the United Municipal Executive over a period of two years. Eventually the Bill was considered by a Select Committee of this House and complete agreement was reached on an amended Bill, one which is acceptable to me. After the amended Bill of the Select Committee had been published, I received further representations from the legal advisers of the provinces in regard to a few minor amendments merely for the sake of achieving greater clarity. I shall consequently move these amendments in the Committee Stage. At this juncture I also wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the chairman and members of the Select Committee for the thorough work that was done.

There are two reasons in particular why this Bill is necessary. Firstly, obsolete restrictions still apply in many parts of the country, and in many municipal areas there are restrictions which prohibit modern building methods from being used. We already have statutory authority to remove these restrictions in cases where housing schemes are built by the National Housing Commission. With the rapid development of modern requirements and techniques in the building industry, particularly as far as building methods making use of factory-constructed units are concerned, it has become essential for obsolete provisions which have a hampering effect, which retard development and which impede the provision of housing to be removed. Effective town planning and provision of housing cannot be allowed to be impeded and interfered with by obsolete restrictive provisions imposed on land many years ago. This Bill creates proper machinery for removing those provisions.

Secondly, this measure is necessary to clear up the legal confusion which has arisen as a result of court decisions. Prior to 1945 the Transvaal had an ordinance which authorized its Administrator to alter conditions, including those which had not been imposed by him. In 1945, however, the Appeal Court declared this provision invalid. The Transvaal made urgent representations to the Government, which passed Act 48 of 1946 in order to rectify the position. The Act was purely a matter between the Government and the Province of the Transvaal at that stage, and was aimed at granting certain additional powers to the Administrator, but under the supervision of, as was the case at the time, the Governor-General. The other provinces were not consulted about the matter, but the Act did make provision for them to request that it be made applicable to them as well. Up to 1927 the Cape Province had had no legislation on townships. During the period from 1927 to 1934 the Cape Province did have a townships ordinance. but it contained no authority for the removal of conditions after they had been imposed. It very soon became clear that it was simply impossible to allow future development to be hamstrung by inflexible conditions. In 1934 the Cape Province then obtained its existing Townships Ordinance, No. 33 of 1934 It contains provisions (sections 18 (3) and 3 bis) which authorize the Administrator to alter conditions imposed in terms of the Ordinance, but no other conditions. In 1948 the Cape Province got into difficulties in connection with the removal of conditions in respect of certain land which it had bought specifically for school purposes, and it had to ask that Act 48 of 1946 be made applicable to its area as well. That was done. Legal advice confirmed that Act 48 of 1946 granted the province additional powers to those which it possessed in terms of Ordinance 33 of 1934. In 1950 the Cape Supreme Court confirmed this statement in its decision in the case of Garden Cities vs. Registrar of Deeds. Up to 1962—that is to say, for 28 years—the relevant Ordinance of 1934 and those of other provinces had legal force and effect. Then the Appeal Court gave its decision in the well-known case of Ronnies Motors v. Van der Walt in 1962, declaring the action of the Administrator ultra vires. The Appeal Court found that the Ordinance concerned did not authorize the Administrator to remove conditions of title upon the application of an owner for his own benefit. What that amounted to was that what had been accepted as right for 28 years and what had been confirmed by legal advice and a decision of the Supreme Court, namely that Act 48 of 1946 granted an Administrator additional powers, was set aside by the Appeal Court, with the implication that Act 48 of 1946 had in actual fact deprived Administrators of powers which they had formerly possessed.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not discussing the pros and cons of the matter here—we may safely leave that in the hands of our courts—but that I am merely giving you a historical survey of events.

This decision, which did not at the same time declare ultra vires the relevant section 18 (3) bis of the 1934 Ordinance, caused great confusion, which was aggravated by a series of conflicting legal opinions. The legal position was so confusing that the Deeds Office simply refused to accept any authority for removing any condition in terms of the section concerned before a further decision had been given by the court. In an attempt to save the situation, Act 48 of 1946 was amended so as to make it applicable in all areas where town planning schemes were in force, whether or not the schemes had been finally completed. Several legal opinions subsequently confirmed that “purpose” as defined in section 1 of Act 48 of 1946 had to be interpreted in its broadest sense and included aspects such as conditions regarding the height of buildings, cover, building lines and so forth. The Administrators and the State President acted in terms of this and dozens of proclamations were issued. In August, 1966, a directly opposite legal opinion was given, to the effect that “purpose” had to be interpreted in its most limited sense. What had been confusion then became chaos. To mention only one example: In the case of a large plot which is subject to a condition that only one building may be erected on it, the condition may be altered so as to allow a huge block of flats to be erected on it or to have business premises erected on it, but no authority may be granted for subdividing such a large plot to make provision for two dwelling houses. Legal doubt exists as to whether, if such a condition is altered so as to make provision for the erection of business premises on such a plot, it is legal also to adjust the building lines, cover and so forth to comply with the new “purpose” for which the land is going to be used. Absurdities of this nature, and there are many of them, simply cannot be allowed. This measure is also aimed at putting an end to this, and that is the second reason for the introduction of this Bill.

Seeing that the Bill has been considered by a Select Committee and interested parties and members have had ample opportunity of studying it, I do not intend to give an explanation of all its provisions now. However, there are three features contained in these provisions to which I want to refer. Firstly, this Bill provides for a clear and accurately defined procedure which is to be followed before an Administrator or the Minister may remove or alter a restrictive provision or condition. Amongst other things it is also being made compulsory for every owner or interested party who may possibly be affected by that, to be notified personally and, if he wants to lodge an objection, to be granted an opportunity of doing so. Previously notices were published only in the Government Gazette, but everybody does not read the Government Gazette.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended, I was referring to three features contained in the provisions of the Bill. The first is that persons who are affected by possible changes have to be notified in person so that they will be able to lodge objections if they wish to do so. Secondly, clause 4 (4) provides that if an objection has been lodged against a proposed removal, suspension or alteration of a restrictive provision by an Administrator, the Administrator may not act without my approval. The existing Acts provide that such an alteration may only be made with the approval of the State President. The procedure that has been followed is that the provincial administration refers the matter to the State President through the Department of the Interior. The State President, of course, acts upon the recommendation of the Government—in this case the Minister of the Interior. But that Minister and his Department have no machinery for carrying out investigations, or professional officers who can decide about the desirability or otherwise of such a proposed alteration or removal. Consequently it has been decided that the final decision here should rather rest with the Minister of Community Development, who has a Department which is equipped to investigate and decide about the desirability or necessity of any such alteration or removal. I consider this provision to be an improvement, because by reason of its activities my Department is orientated to protect the interests of the ordinary house-owner in particular, while at the same time being in a position to judge proper town planning.

Thirdly, I want to refer to clause 5 of the Bill, which authorizes the alteration, suspension of removal of restrictions or obligations at my request. As the Bill was drafted originally. it seemed as though arbitrary powers would be conferred upon me without there being any need for proper investigations beforehand. I myself was not satisfied with the original provision and had already had an amendment framed in more or less the same terms as those of the present provision before the Bill was referred to the Select Committee. It has always been the intention to do it in this way. The legal draftsmen—and hon. members must bear in mind that the original Bill was prepared by my Department in conjunction with the officials of the four provinces— deemed it unnecessary to define the procedure in clause 5, because it could be arranged administratively. I agree, however, that it is much better to define and incorporate the procedure in the Bill itself.

I just want to say a few words about the necessity for this clause, which may seem superfluous to many by reason of the fact that my Department can approach the Administrator in the same way as an ordinary applicant can. There are several reasons why this provision is necessary, but I want to mention one only. As I indicated during the discussion On my Vote, we are on the eve of large-scale slum clearance and urban renewal schemes in South Africa, schemes for which the Government, acting through my Department, will have to make available hundreds of millions of rands in the next few years. I consider the matter as being so important that I have decided to undertake an extensive tour overseas together with the two most senior officials of my Department in September or October this year, if all goes well. We shall visit France, Germany, Holland, Austria, Italy, England, the U.S.A. and Canada to make a study of the following matters: (1) The way in which residential premises and/or units for single dwellings and flats (with right of ownership) are made available to the lower and middle income groups, and problems coupled with that, such as transportation problems and the high cost of providing services. (2) The role that authorities and private entrepreneurs can fulfill in respect of (1) above. (3) The measures taken by the authorities to prevent urban areas from deteriorating. (4) Urban renewal, particularly in respect of (a) methods applied in order to modernize backward urban complexes; (b) methods of financing slum clearance and urban renewal; and (c) the way in which private entrepreneurs are mobilized and brought into these processes. (5) Modern trends and methods in connection with prefabricated construction. (6) Metropolitan development of urban areas and the extent to which the Central Government should play a part in that.

With your leave, Mr. Speaker. I wish to add that I am taking an official of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions with me and that he and I shall investigate the following matters: (1) The part played by welfare departments in socio-economic state planning. (2) The way in which preventative and remedial rehabilitation work is co-ordinated with after-care. (3) The way in which the social care of communities which are resettled from slum areas is undertaken and/or co-ordinated and controlled. (4) The way in which the “Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance” and “Medi-care” schemes of the U.S.A. originated and developed and what the future policy in that regard is. as well as a study of the advantages and shortcomings.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since we regard slum clearance and urban renewal as being of such great importance, we are trying to obtain the co-operation of the local authorities through the establishment of state committees for every area that is tackled. So far we have had outstanding success in this regard. We shall have to have many town planning schemes altered in the process; restrictions will have to be altered, removed or suspended, and seeing that millions of rands, money which has to be provided by the State, are at stake here, I cannot make the State (and therefore the Minister) subject to decisions given by Administrators. I personally do not believe that it will ever be necessary for me or my successors in this Department to act contrary to the advice of Administrators. I believe we shall always reach agreement through negotiation, but if that does not happen, the hands of the State may not be tied through lack of authority, where tens of millions of rands may already have been invested in a project.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these are the most important provisions of the Bill, and since the Select Committee has done a thorough piece of work, I trust that I shall receive the unanimous support of the House to place this measure on the Statute Book.

In spite of the reaction that came from this House, I am glad that the hon. the Minister and certain of his officers are to proceed overseas to investigate the possibilities of providing houses and to investigate all the things covered by the terms of this Bill; because I believe that what has happened up to now is that the Minister, by way of group area proclamations and slums clearance legislation has accumulated for himself a huge number of areas which are to some extent like hot potatoes. He does not quite know what to do with them because he is encumbered by a mass of legislation, in many cases old legislation and in many cases legislation which should have been taken off the statute book years ago. We on this side of the House believe that those areas should be developed as quickly as possible for the benefit of the people who are crying for houses. I just want to quote one example to the Minister and I hope he will then get on with the job. During the last year or so I bought a little house and we were going to let a friend stay in it during the recess, but that friend has now decided not to stay in it and my wife went to the estate agent to ask him whether he could let it. Do you know. Sir, that a queue followed her up the street from the estate agent to get possession of this house? I quote this merely to accentuate to the Minister the need for the speedy provision of housing. That is why we are supporting this Bill, because we want to sweep out of the way all those old restrictions applying to land which have in many cases taken months and sometimes years to remove. This is what we want to do because we believe that the main objective of the government, which is what this Minister represents, is to provide for the needs of the community in regard to housing, and at the moment this Minister is concerned more especially with the needs of the community in regard to housing. [Interjection.] The suggestion has come that he should be, but I believe that he is. I will credit the Minister with that because I believe that the Minister wants to do his job. At the moment we read one Press report after the other saying that from 70,000 to 100,000 houses are required. I want to disregard these for the moment and I want to believe that the Minister in fact wants to get on with the job of providing houses. I am not being dramatic, I hope, when I say that I want to believe that the Minister wants to provide housing. We on this side of the House want to place at his disposal every facility possible to help him to do that, and I believe that this Bill helps him to do just that. All we ask of the Minister in return …

Is to take you along on his tour.

I would be only too delighted to go. I might also say that on my return I might have an equal contribution to that of the Minister to make towards the solution of this particular problem, because it is only with the prodding and the help of the Opposition that anything at all has been achieved over the last 20 years.

Now I want to come to the actual provisions of this Bill. I sincerely hope that this Bill has been a lesson to the hon. the Minister and to his colleagues as to the value of Select Committees of this House. When this Bill came before us in its original form I think I am not going too far when I say that it was repugnant to this House; it was repugnant to the Opposition because it was designed to give the Minister powers which rode roughshod over everything we had previously considered as important in regard to the removal of restrictions on the use of land and property. But we asked the Minister to send the Bill to a Select Committee. He had no idea of doing that, but he responded and I give him full marks for that, because it was the finest Select Committee of this House on which I have had the privilege of serving. Out of this Select Committee has come a Bill which is acceptable to both sides of this House and to the rest of South Africa. That is the point I want to make, because we know and the Minister knows that everyone wanted some sort of measure which would remove the tedious process through which one has to go at the moment to remove one stupid restriction. For example, we had a letter this morning, long after the Select Committee finished its work, which says that a building society has problems in a place like Nelspruit, where in a whole street every house has offended against the building line which was laid down. At the moment there is no legislation available which can remove that and allow those houses to remain there without the threat of being knocked down. There are at the moment, I understand from this same report which I have not read thoroughly, problems in connection with a township which was laid out to accommodate houses on stands of one acre. Because the stands were so big, it was agreed that a 40-foot building line should be observed. Since then it has been decided that that was quite an unappropriate area for acre stands. It was decided then by all concerned that those stands should be subdivided into smaller stands, I believe of a quarter-acre, but I am not sure. But there is no power to remove the building line of 40 feet. You can imagine, Sir, what it would be like if you had to build to a building line of 40 feet on a stand of a ¼ acre. The position is just absurd, and one wonders how we have lived through the years with these peculiar restrictions applying. I can only think that we have existed because we have not observed them, but now of course when it comes to the notice of the Legislature, obviously something has to be done about it.

I want to comment on one particular aspect which I touched on earlier. This Minister, by way of group areas declarations and slum legislation, where he will clear up slums and rebuild them, and by urban renewal schemes, must have come into possession of an enormous amount of housing land. At the moment I accept the fact that apart from the difficulty of replanning these areas he must be frustrated, because he has to go through a process of removing certain restrictions which have applied since the year dot, before replanning and re-using this land, and providing housing for people who are waiting for houses. We are agreeing with this Bill because we want to help the Minister in doing this, but I want to sound one note of warning. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in proceeding to use this land and to renew these areas and to do away with slums and to provide housing, will show a measure of speed, of willingness, which far exceeds that shown by the old Group Areas Development Board, because there we had examples one after the other where houses stod empty after the board had acquired them and after they had been declared for occupation by a particular group of people. They stood empty for months and when eventually they were acquired by a member of the group entitled to occupy them, they had been desecrated by vandals, guttering had been torn off in many cases, the lead piping had been removed, the windows had been smashed, the floors had been torn up, to such an extent that they were no longer fit for habitation. These are the experiences we have had. We have backed this Minister all along the line. His proclaimed effort is to provide housing for people, housing which is so vitally necessary at this moment, but we have seen unfortunately that in certain instances he has not taken adequate advantage of the provisions we have given him. He has not used the sword with which we have armed him. We want to make a plea to this hon. Minister to please get on with the job of providing the housing which this Bill will enable him to do.

In addition to this I accept that this will help the ordinary owner of land to remove restrictions which are inhibiting him. I think that in the overall picture this will apply largely to the efforts of the State to get on with the job of planning and replanning and the provision of houses. This is what the hon. the Minister is interested in. We support this Bill wholeheartedly in spite of the fact that we have just passed the Physical Planning Bill. The Physical Planning Bill makes us ask this question: How many people are going to deal with the land in the provinces and in the areas of the local authorities? In the case of the Physical Planning Bill the question is different. That Bill is to all intents and purposes going to freeze the use of land for industrial purposes and the establishment of industries. I hope that this hon. Minister does not have one thought in his mind about industrial land. I hope that his one thought is the establishment of housing and other buildings where our people can live so that the people who are brought out to this country to do specific jobs for industry and others have housing available and do not have to move from one city to another. These are the aspects I want to lay before the hon. the Minister. Although we support this Bill wholeheartedly I feel that we must emphasize the fact that we are doing so for a specific reason, namely to provide housing for our people and to provide it quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet to express my appreciation to members on both sides of this House who served on the Select Committee and jointly presented a piece of legislation to this House which ought to be acceptable to all parties concerned and which ought to give satisfaction. It is true that this legislation largely originated from requests made by the Administrators to assist them to overcome certain problems, as detailed by the hon. member for Umlazi, with which they were faced in the past. The Administrators and the provinces gave this legislation their strong support. There were certain misgivings in regard to the legislation originally referred to the Select Committee. As you know. Sir, the provinces are very concerned about their rights. The Province of Natal in particular is allergic when it comes to the granting of certain powers to Ministers. I am pleased to say, however, that with a little consultation and a little ironing out of difficulties, we have succeeded in presenting an agreed measure to this House without having abandoned any principle underlying this legislation and without having watered down any principle originally contained in the legislation.

I just want to call attention to one aspect of this legislation which to my mind is the real merit of this legislation. That is that we are creating machinery by means of this legislation for the removal under certain circumstances of restricting obstacles as far as effective town-planning is concerned when it is in the public interest to do so. This ought to enable local authorities, the provincial authorities and the Department of Community Development to finalize town-planning schemes much more rapidly under certain circumstances. Since the hon. member for Umlazi appealed to the hon. the Minister and his Department to get on with their jobs, I want to say to the local authorities, seeing that they now have this legislation, “let them also get on with the job”. They have, in the first instance an obligation towards their communities when it comes to the provision of housing. This legislation will expedite town-planning and will remove many of the obstacles with which the local authorities, the provinces and the Minister had to cope in the past and will increase the availability of building sites available to a larger extent. That in point of fact is one of the major bottle-necks which is being experienced at present in our attempts to provide housing at a more rapid rate as well as to provide cheaper housing.

It is hardly credible that in this country of ours with its wide spaces there is such a dire shortage of land and sites for the provision of housing in and about our cities. This causes the prices of existing sites and stands to soar. That makes housing terribly expensive, so expensive that the man in the street cannot afford it at present. By means of this legislation we have succeeded in removing certain restrictions and obstacles which existed for the local authorities and for the Provincial Administrations so as to enable them to establish townships more rapidly. We have given powers to the Minister to act more rapidly and to make sites available. We hope that this will assist us in our attempts to overcome these problems with which we were faced in years gone by. I gladly support this Bill because I regard it to be a major step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points only. The one concerns the question out to me by the hon. member for Umlazi in regard to the connection between this Bill and the Physical Planning Act. It is not the intention to use this measure in respect of industrial sites. I must say. however, that where we are concerned with the replanning of a large area it may be necessary for a portion of that area to be zoned for light industries or for commercial purposes. Industrial sites may. in fact, become involved in the matter in that respect only. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Parow that it is a matter of absolute necessity for us to make progress with this enormous task. Unfortunately it is true that a backlog has developed over the years in regard to the entire process of slum clearance in particular. Now I am not speaking of the provision of housing. Slum clearance and town renewal are things which were neglected in South Africa in the past. We are now faced with a situation which has made all our local authorities aware of this problem. They are not working everywhere with as much speed and as nicely as I would like to see them do. In spite of that, I have to point out that this is not a process which one can tackle to-day and simply complete within a very short space of time. Replanning an urban area involves the proper replanning of the entire area. That cannot be done over-hastily, because the replanning has to be such that the rebuilt area will not revert to a slum area within the space of a year or ten. We must have proper planning and that takes time.

Then you must get a move on.

Yes, but that is essential. We must ascertain what method is the best. As far as several areas are concerned, we have appointed advisers and firms of consultants but we find that we simply do not have sufficient people in South Africa who have knowledge of the replanning process. Therefore we want to ascertain what methods we can discover and what methods we can employ for expediting this process.

In the second place I want to mention another important matter. Once we have replanned an area we can begin to interest private initiative in that area. I am very pleased that I am able to say that there is tremendous interest on the part of the private sector to obtain properties and to erect building complexes in the areas which are being replanned. This will facilitate the task of the State and the local authorities to a considerable extent. As far as the State’s contribution is concerned, I want to say that there are large schemes which will have to be tackled in virtually every large town in our country as well as in many of our smaller towns. Because there are housing shortages, and because all the town councils are now waking up, the demands made on the State in regard to the provision of funds are assuming such proportions that I can use every cent which I can get from my colleague, the Minister of Finance. That figure will depend on what the national finances will allow in the future. I can give hon. members the assurance that I on my part will leave no stone unturned to obtain the maximum amount which it is at all possible to obtain for this purpose.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 4;

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of this Bill is, inter alia, to implement the concessions in respect of social pensions and allowances announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech earlier this year. Hon. members will recall that in the case of Whites the additional allowance which had been payable to the recipients of social pensions and allowances was consolidated with the basic pension in 1965. That resulted in the means test being relaxed to a considerable extent and in the virtual elimination of the difference between the income of persons who just qualified for a pension or allowance and the person who did not. In 1966 it was decided to give further relief to the recipients of social pensions in the form of a bonus of R24 per month which was paid to such persons.

Per month?

No, I am sorry. It was R24 per annum. I wish it could have been R24 per month.

In clause 14 it is now being proposed to increase this bonus in respect of Whites by R12 per annum to R36 per annum. The additional allowances are still being paid to Coloureds, Indians and Bantu and in order to give these people some relief these allowances are being increased by R6 per annum in respect of Coloureds and Indians and by R3 per annum in respect of Bantu. The same concession is being made to war veteran pensioners in that the additional amount which will be payable to them will be increased by R12 per annum in the case of Whites and by R6 per annum in the case of Coloureds and Indians. These concessions will come into operation as from 1st October, 1967.

In addition it has been decided to pay social pensions and allowances to Chinese as from 1st April, 1967. As hon. members will see in the Bill, Chinese will be treated in the same way as Coloureds and Indians.

Hon. members will recall that I recently announced during the discussion of the Vote of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions that war veterans’ pensions will henceforth also be paid to permanent and voluntary white members of the military units who performed duties during the Zulu Rebellion in Natal in 1906. At that time I also furnished details in connection with this rebellion, which is known as the Bambata Rebellion. Clause 9 authorizes the payment of such pensions with effect from 1st April, 1967. So much as regards clauses 1 to 14.

The other clauses, except for clause 16, contain no new principles and can, if necessary, be explained individually during the Committee Stage.

Clause 16 deals with the pension rights of certain members on the establishment of the Munitions Production Board. When this Board was established in 1964 a number of officials of the Public Service was transferred to the service of the Board. One of the conditions subject to which they were transferred was that officials would not be entitled to poorer pension benefits on account of the transfer than those to which they had been entitled prior to the transfer. In terms of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963, the Munitions Production Board was declared an “associated institution” and all employees of the Board automatically became members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. However, the persons who were members of other State-controlled funds at the time of their transfer felt that it could not be ascertained beyond any doubt that on their retirement they would receive better—or equally good—benefits from the Associated Institutions Pension Fund as would have been the case had they remained members of the funds to which they used to belong.

The provisions of clause 16 will enable them to elect to have their former pension rights restored. These are the most important provisions of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, this Bill brings about relief to a deserving section of the community, and obviously we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support this measure.

This Bill grants alleviation to various sections of the community. The first 14 clauses, bar the first two clauses, deal with social pensioners and contain amendments to the various Acts pertaining to the payment of those pensions. There are one or two points on which I believe the Minister could give further clarification. Firstly I think there is disappointment that the Minister is not extending the benefits and privileges contained in this Bill to a greater extent.

Order! The hon. member cannot deal with that now.

I do not intend dealing with it, Mr. Speaker, but I intend dealing with the provisions contained in this Bill and certain aspects of those provisions, for instance, the amount that the bonus is increased by. In addition to their bonus white social penioners will receive R1 per month more in terms of clause 14. Allowances for Chinese, Coloured, Indian and Bantu social pensioners are to be increased in terms of clause 4 of the Bill. There is an important difference here. We realize that proportionately the other racial groups are to receive an increase, with the Coloured, the Chinese and the Indians receiving an increase of 50c per month and the Bantu 25c per month. The Minister mentioned the amending Act of 1965. In that measure the consolidation of the allowances brought about a relaxation of the pensions plus means limitation. However, that only applied to the white group, to the white social pensioners. This Bill increases the additional allowances that are paid to the non-White groups I think this step is not a wise step to take in that it would be far better if the Minister gave attention to extending a similar position to the non-Whites as far as the consolidation of the additional allowances is concerned. We see in terms of clause 4 that this additional allowance is in fact in exces of the basic pension that is being paid to the non-white groups. It means that there is a vast and widening gap between those persons who just fail to qualify for a social pension and those who do qualify for the minimum pension. For example, if the Coloured pensioner can qualify for the minimum pension of R6 per month then in terms of clause 4 of this Bill he immediately qualifies for an additional allowance of R102 per annum as from 1st October, 1967. Taking the maximum basic pension of R72 per annum, his additional allowance in terms of this measure will be some R102 per annum. It means that as far as the minimum pension is concerned a Coloured person qualifying for the minimum pension, because of the way in which this measure will be administered, will receive R9 per month. On the other hand, those who just fail to qualify will not receive any benefit at all. The amending legislation of 1965 narrowed that gap between those who just failed to qualify and those who were paid a minimum pension, and the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension did not mean that there was such a great gap. However, the Minister delegates his powers for the non-White group to the responsible Ministers concerned and we never have an opportunity of discussing that in any detail because legislative power is taken in terms of this Bill. So I do hope the Minister will be able to give an indication as to the reasons why the additional allowances will be continued to be dealt with in this manner as far as the non-Whites are concerned.

There are other aspects of this Bill which I believe deserve greater consideration. For instance, clauses 9 and 10 deal with amendments to the War Veterans’ Pensions Act of 1962. We find for the first time that the Chinese group are defined as a group as far as these pension benefits are concerned.

We realize that the Aged Persons Bill, which has already passed through this House, also defined the Chinese group as a separate group for pension purposes. Sir, in terms of clauses 9 and 10 we find that the Chinese group is now included in the definition of war veteran. The term “war veteran” now includes Europeans, Coloureds, Chinese and Indians. An important omission here is that the Bantu are not included in the definition of “war veteran”. I think it is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not take this opportunity of further extending this definition so as to cover persons of all racial groups who have served their country. Sir, the advantages of being classified as a war veteran in terms of the War Veterans’ Pensions Act are shown in paragraph (b) of clause 10 of this Bill, which shows that the additional amount paid to the white war veteran is to be increased from R120 per annum to R132 per annum. As far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, the additional war veteran’s pension is to be increased from R54 to R60 per annum. Members of the Chinese group will also receive R54 per annum until the 1st October, 1967, when the amount will be increased to R60 per annum. All these groups therefore will receive the benefit of a war veteran’s pension.

This Bill also contains a new provision which extends the rights of persons who served in the Zulu rebellion of 1906, known as the Bambata Rebellion. Sir, those of us who represent the Province of Natal particularly welcome this provision. We have been urging for the past two years or more that this provision should be placed on the Statute Book, and it is indeed pleasing to see that the necessary provision is now being made in this measure.

That is because you have a Natalian as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Well, perhaps we will get a great deal more as time goes on. There is a great deal of ground still to be covered. Sir, there are persons who for various reasons were unable to serve in subsequent wars. They were therefore not included in the definition of “war veteran”. The inclusion of this provision means that if these people are at present receiving an old-age pension, they will now receive an additional R8 per month. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister can give us some indication as to how this provision will be administered as far as proof of service is concerned. Several of the veterans who took part in these old campaigns experience great difficulty in proving that they served in those campaigns. Anglo-Boer war veterans and the so-called “Protesting burgers” of 1914 all experience great difficulty in proving that they served in those wars. The same will apply to many people who served in the Zulu rebellion, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give the House some indication as to what administrative arrangements will be made so that these people will not find it unduly difficult to provide proof of service.

In terms of clause 20 provision is made for the various dates on which the various clauses of the Bill will come into operation. In this connection I would like to mention an important point as far as social pensions are concerned and that is that the increased benefits will only become applicable as from the 1st October, 1967. It is difficult to follow the argument that has been put forward in the past that where the means test is relaxed as from a certain date, the increased benefits can only be paid as from the same date. In 1965, for example, when the means test was relaxed as from the 1st October of that year, it was decided that the increased benefits would only be payable as from that date. The argument that this is necessary in order to avoid administrative difficulties is not a very valid one in this age of modern mechanized accounting machines. There should be no difficulty in increasing all social pensions by R1 per month as from the 1st April, 1967, the beginning of the new financial year. We know that the amending legislation which was passed in the first session of 1966 provided for an increase of R2 per month to the white social pensioners as from the 1st April of that year. I cannot see therefore why the increased benefit should not come into operation as from the 1st April. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can put forward some other reason as to why it is necessary for these persons to lose the benefit of this increase for a period of six months. We know to what extent the cost of living has increased, particularly over the past two years, and it would have been of immense benefit to these people if the increases provided for in this Bill could have been introduced as from the 1st April of this year. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, the Bantu social pensioners have not had an increase since 1965. The increase that they are receiving this year is only 25 cents per month as from the 1st October, 1967.

Sir, there are other speakers on this side who wish to deal with certain other aspects of this Bill. We believe that the clauses which deal with the Government Service Pensions Act bring about an improvement which will be welcomed by the members of these funds.

Then I want to make one final point. This legislation obviously affects a large number of people. There are many people who intend applying for a pension at some future date, who are unaware of the provisions of the Act. In this connection I would like to compliment the hon. the Minister’s Department on the preparation of an excellent memorandum which has been circulated to members of this House and which sets out details with regard to the means test, social benefits, welfare benefits, maintenance grants, family allowances and the various pension benefits provided for in this Bill. This memorandum will be of inestimable value to members of the House. In this connection I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ask his Department to prepare, in a condensed form, literature which can be made available to persons who make inquiries at the various regional offices, so that amendments such as those we have before us to-day. can easily be understood by all interested parties. Applicants for pensions will then be able to see what they are entitled to and whether, in terms of the various relaxations and concessions which have been made in the past, they qualify for a social pension. I do hope that this document will be more widely circulated and that it will be possible for the hon. the Minister to instruct his Department to prepare a summary which can be freely circulated so that interested parties will know exactly what they are entitled to. Sir, we have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading. We realize that this Bill will bring benefits to a deserving section of the community.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred briefly to clauses 9 and 10 and I wish to deal with them in greater detail. Before I do so. however, I wish to quote from this very excellent memorandum, to which the hon. member for Umbilo also made reference, and I wish to associate myself with his remarks. It is indeed a great source of assistance to us when we are questioned by pensioners seeking information. I want to quote the introductory paragraph which I believe is the same as the introductory paragraph in previous issues. I am referring to the memorandum that we received in the early part of the Session. The introduction says this—

I believe the intention is that it should apply to all races, but I also believe that this statement is not completely correct. I am referring particularly to the point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to clauses 9 and 10 with reference to war veterans’ pensions for the Bantu. Here is a group of people who twice, when our country has been in need, have come forward voluntarily to give service to their country, and they are not receiving the same recognition as other races. I am referring to the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians, and now also the Chinese. It is interesting to study for a moment the number of people involved in so far as the Bantu are concerned. I am quoting from the South African Year Book No. 5, which deals in fair detail with this particular aspect. Reference is made to the fact—and I quote the figures in round thousands—that there were 147,000 Whites, 2,000 Colourd labour units and a Native labour contingent of 83,000 serving in the 1914-1918 War. When one considers where this Native labour contingent was employed in the various theatres of activity, one finds that 75,000 of these Natives actually carried out their service outside the Union as it then was. There were, roughly, 25,000 in the European theatre, 17,000 in the Egyptian theatre and 33,000 went to South-West Africa, leaving a very small nucleus of only 8,000 who remained in the Union and carried out their duties here. I have said that these people were in the main non-combatants, but the very fact that they left their home shores subjected them to a certain element of risk I believe that in certain circumstances they risked their lives, and I believe that the time has come when some consideration should be given to seeing that at least they enjoy similar concessions.

Order! I cannot allow this aspect to be discussed.

But the Chinese are now included.

Yes, but I cannot allow the inclusion of any further groups to be discussed.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I want to point out that the only provision which exists at the moment for these people is ex gratia payments, and I believe that is entirely inadequate. According to the latest figures …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the aspect of people who are not referred to in the Bill.

In view of your ruling, Sir, I shall say I listened with care to the Minister when he made his Second Reading speech. He referred very briefly to the inclusion of the Chinese and I believe I am in order in referring to that, because it is in the Bill. But he did not give any particular reason why the Chinese were included. I have nothing against the fact that the Chinese should be included, but I wonder whether the Minister can give any reason why it became necessary. According to my information, there are roughly 8,000 Chinese in South Africa and I am sure that the number who actually served in the forces in the two world wars is small. I would be glad if the Minister in his reply would tell us the reason, and also the number and the amount which will be involved in extending these additional facilities.

I should also like to say a few words in connection with clause 9 as far as the Chinese are concerned, and I want to tell the Minister that we really welcome that provision, but I want to support the last speaker as far as the Bantu are concerned. I do not want to elaborate on that, but I just want to tell the Minister that the Bantu whom he fails to mention here are our own people. The second thing I want to tell him is that they assisted us during World War I as well as during World War II and if we are unfortunate enough they will assist us again, and I hope the Minister will not overlook them. But I do not want to go any further than that.

I want to come back to another group of people whom the Minister does in fact mention in clause 9, where he refers to the veterans of World War I. Here I really thought that the Minister would help us in regard to the 10 years’ restriction, as he told us a year or so ago he contemplated doing. The Minister knows what I am sneaking about. I am speaking about the old veterans who remarried after a period of 10 years, and their widows and children. I do hope that the Minister is going to place that group of people somewhat higher on the list.

The third group of people who also fall under the 1914-1918 veterans are those people who participated in that war and who are still subject to the means test. That war has been over for nearly 50 years. Those people are now getting old and becoming destitute, and I ask the Minister not to overlook them either next year.

Let me begin with the last speaker straight away. I have a great deal of sympathy with the requests made by him in connection with war pensioners and the restriction on the period within which such a pensioner may marry so that his wife and the children born from the marriage may also qualify for benefits. The allocation of the money made available to us by the Treasury takes place on the basis of priorities and this year we have simply been unable to attend to that matter. I would have liked to have done a great deal more if more money had been made available to me, but this year I have been unable to attend to that matter. I have sympathy with his request.

Order! The hon. member and the hon. the Minister have my sympathy, but they are both out of order.

It was not my intention to say any more in this regard. Unfortunately I am unable to do away at this stage with the means test which is still applicable to war veterans, but I must point out that most of them have attained the age of 70 years at which age a very relaxed means test is applicable and at which age any personal income is not taken into account at all. I think that most of those war veterans who have any need of a pension do in fact already receive one. In any event, in this case, too, I have been unable to make any concessions this year.

I was asked why the provisions dealing with the concessions in regard to the additional bonus would only come into operation as from 1st October. The hon. member for Umbilo said that with mechanization we could very easily have done so as from 1st April. The hon. member should remember, however, that the authorizing legislation is usually considered by Parliament towards the end of the session only in which case we can only commence payments by July at the very earliest. That means that we cannot simply punch the new amounts on the cards used in the machines. We can do so from that day on but we have to employ clerks to do the work of paying out the arrear amounts, something which is a tremendous task. Normally this means that when we have to pay out arrear social pensions in particular, the staff have to work overtime until 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock at night for an average of three months in that year and we mainly have to employ women clerks to do that work. It involves enormous problems to have the staff—who are already overworked as a result of the manpower shortage and who are already doing a great deal of overtime—do that work after hours over a long period of months because one simply cannot do all that work within the normal working hours.

In 1966 the increase was paid out on 1st April.

They did in fact get it as from 1st April but it was not paid out immediately. It was only paid out to them after that date and that meant additional work. That is one of the reasons but the most important reason is that if we had given it as from 1st April, that would have doubled the amount for this tax year and I was unable to obtain that amount from the Minister of Finance.

The question was asked here whether the time had not arrived for a revision in the pension scales for non-Whites. I may just mention that the Departments of Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs and Bantu Administration are at present conducting a comprehensive investigation into the entire pension system and the social assistance schemes for the various race groups, and the Government has decided not to effect considerable changes until such time as that investigation has been completed.

As regards the question of adducing proof of war service, now also in the case of the war veterans of the Bambata Rebellion, I may tell the hon. member that the following procedure has always been followed in the past. If the person’s name appears on the records, there is, of course, no problem. But if his name does not appear on the records he has to submit sworn statements made by two other persons, whose names must appear on the records, to the effect that he did do war service. I realize that this is becoming more and more difficult. I have given instructions to my Department and at the moment they are trying to devise another system. I have given some thought to the idea that it may be possible for a person who claims to be entitled to such a pension to take at least one other person with him to a magistrate and to make a statement before the magistrate. They then have to satisfy the magistrate, on the strength of their statements to him, that he is in fact entitled to such a pension. I have been thinking of something of this nature. However, the Department is still planning what may possibly be done to meet the case of these people.

As far as war veterans’ pensions are concerned, Bantu are excluded on account of the fact that in 1942 the then government decided that Bantu could not be regarded as war veterans because they did not do war service as defined in the Act; they had to be treated on an ex gratia basis. There are many Bantu who in fact do receive a war veteran’s pension on an ex gratia basis. Because they did not actually do service in fighting units on the battle front they cannot, however, be included in that definition. In reality they themselves did not do any fighting. Consequently one can only treat them on an ex gratia basis.

On the same basis as the Coloureds?

No, not really. In any event these are the arguments used in 1942 by the then Minister of Finance and these were the grounds on which he said he could not include Bantu. For that reason Bantu have been treated on an ex gratia basis since that time. There are many of them who receive such pensions. Whenever there is any increase in pensions or benefits the ex gratia award to those Bantu is automatically increased on that same basis. That has been the position since 1942 and I have been informed accordingly. I am not an expert in this field, but I am given to understand that that is in fact the only way in which we can do so.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why does the hon. the Minister not change it and put the Africans who served on the same level? There are hundreds of them in the hall; there one can see the names of those who died on service.

Order! That is not a question; it is an argument.

They receive that benefit in any event. They only receive it on an ex gratia basis.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 9:

The hon. the Minister did not reply to my question in regard to the Chinese. Would he give us some information as to the reason for their inclusion and the extent of their war service, as well as the numbers involved? I wonder whether he can supply that information.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I do not have those particulars at my disposal. In any event, it is a small number which is involved. As soon as the exact figures are available I shall furnish them to the hon. member

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give some indication in regard to this question of delegation. The proposal is to delete the section whereby the person to whom the power was delegated had to occupy a post classified in the administrative division of the public service. That portion is now to be deleted in terms of the clause before the committee. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give the reasons why it is deemed necessary to delete that portion and whether the delegation of powers will still be granted only to senior officials of that department.

This question has a bearing on re-organization in the Public Service and on the new designations for public servants. This amendment is merely to ensure that powers will not be delegated to officers who occupy posts which are not sufficiently senior.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

We on this side of the House shall vote against this item. Our reasons are as follows. Hon. members will see that this particular item deals with 1,002 morgen of land known as the Pongola Forest Reserve, situated in the district of Paulpietersburg. It is inherited State-owned land and was declared a demarcated forest area in 1921. In that year some appropriate authority, with the full knowledge of what they were doing, decided that it was a suitable area to proclaim under the Act as a demarcated forestry area. That was duly done. Since 1921 till the present time that has remained so, i.e. for a period of 46 years. Before the Select Committee we had certain cases where land which is in a demarcated forest area, is being withdrawn, and it is so recommended by the Select Committee. I refer particularly to cases numbers (3) and (6) which we have just passed. There you will notice that a rider was added by the Select Committee in regard to those two areas, which is to the effect that the land should be withdrawn but that it should not be alienated to private interests. In other words the Select Committee felt that it was right and fair that the land should not be alienated to private interests, meaning it is State-owned land—although it is demarcated forest area—and that it must remain State-owned land. The Select Committee was concerned that the land should not pass out of the ownership of the State into private interests. Here is the point on which I want to dwell for a moment or two with your approval. The world over, never mind in South Africa, country after country with their population explosion find that they have inadequate land for places of public resort, public recreation and public use of all kinds. We in the Select Committee are continually getting applications brought before us for the alienation of land for specific purposes associated with school sites, church sites and other public purposes. Each case is dealt with on its merits. The point I wish to make is this. There is continual pressure to take State-owned land for various purposes. Once it has been taken and it has been withdrawn from its status as State-owned land, it is gone and it is gone for keeps. We on this side of the House wish to emphasize the necessity of the State maintaining ownership of blocks of land which are State-owned. In the papers before us in regard to case No. 9, which is the particular case I am dealing with now, a point is made that the land is no longer suitable for forestry purposes It must have been felt to be suitable in 1921 when it was demarcated. But in the process of time and for whatever reason it may be, the competent authorities and the Department of Forestry say that it is no longer suitable. But now, Sir, here is the point. The appropriate official from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure who appeared before the committee in dealing with this particular matter was questioned in regard to the papers before us which are not before the House. Those papers were before the Select Committee. You see here before you merely the recommendation of the Select Committee. Now, what did the papers before the Select Committee have to say. It said inter alia—

Now, on questioning we elicited the fact that if the adjoining farmers had not asked for that land, the Department of Forestry would not have gone about having it withdrawn from demarcation as a forest area. The whole idea of getting it released was triggered off by the fact that adjacent farmers asked for its release. Private interests wanted it released. That is the evidence that was given before the Select Committee by the appropriate official. But there is more to it than that. In case after case where the point was put, the reply was given that the normal procedure, the ordinary way of dealing with such lands, is for the department concerned to say to other Government departments: “We are considering releasing this land. It will go to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for disposal in terms of the law. But before doing that, do you as a State Department require this land for any purpose?” Inquiry is then made. That is the normal procedure according to our information. And amongst others they go to the four Administrators and ask them whether they require this land for their provincial government purposes. In this particular matter I want to emphasize that it is the 1,002 morgen that are concerned. This is no little piece of a corner of land. It is nearly 2,000 acres, and it is 2,000 acres of very nice land indeed, although it is a bit broken. It is land eminently suitable as a place of public resort. not with a big town on the doorstep to-day, but who knows what the development for Paulpietersburg will be in the next decades, never mind 20 or 30 years. But what is 10 or 30 years in the life of a nation? Why should we give away 2,000 acres of land to private people alongside that area who indicated that they would like to buy pieces of land and add them to their farms, and the Department forthwith comes to Parliament and asks for this land being released? This land is situated in an area in respect of which I have no hesitation in saying—no hesitation whatever—that the people of poor Paulpietersburg in that area can look forward to a tremendous development in the years that lie ahead and where this type of land will be worth its weight in gold in the years to come. And our children who come after us will wonder what their forefathers were thinking of to allow land of that kind, of that character, to be alienated and handed over to private ownership. This is what we are against. We stand for the maintenance of the ownership, the public ownership of such lands. And in the case of this particular land we are told that the normal procedure was not followed. I can only go on the evidence. We were told that they did not offer this land to the other State Departments, that they did not offer it to the Administrators. We have in one of the cases before us here, a case where the land was so offered and where in fact in my own province the Administrator indicated that he would like a certain piece of land, a much smaller piece than this one. One of these cases is here in the papers before us. He indicated that he would like it as a place of public resort where the public could be allowed to go and enjoy themselves—a place of public resort as defined in the Ordinance. But that was not the case. In this case you have nearly 2,000 acres of land. The normal procedure of offering it to State Departments was not followed. In this particular case it is also quite clear that the instigator, certainly the person who activated this particular transaction initially, was a-private person who frankly says, that he wants to buy that piece of land. It is set out in the papers that came before this Select Comittee. And we feel that it is completely and utterly wrong, that the principle is quite wrong, and that the departure from normal, procedure was wrong because it was not followed in the case of this land.

The hon. member for South Coast has been serving on the Select Committee on State-owned Land for many years. This is not the first time something like this has happened and this is a task which is normally performed by the Department concerned. Indeed, the Department is the proper channel through which this task is to be performed. The withdrawal of land is not a task of Parliament. However much we appreciate the hon. member’s information and knowledge of State-owned land and his attitude towards this question, he can at times, like now in this case, be extremely difficult. The hon. member knows how many times this very same principle has been affected—time after time, year after year. What is the position here? Here it is a case of inherited State-owned land. The State inherited this land. Now one is faced with the position that the Department of Forestry found that this land could not be afforested effectively unless that was done at an extremely high cost. Now what is the position of the Department of Forestry? The task of this Department is threefold. In the first place it has to afforest areas, in the second place it has to conserve the areas as catchment areas, and in the third place it has to protect such areas from encroaching sand. In this case the Department has reported that this land has to be protected and conserved at a very high cost without the Department ever being able to afforest it productively. It will only be possible to afforest this land at an extremely high cost and even then it will not be possible to do so economically. Now the normal procedure laid down by this House in legislation is being followed and that is that the State may advertise the land for settlement purposes by employing the usual procedure. However, in terms of a subsequent Act passed by this Parliament, State-owned land may also be used for supplementing and consolidating uneconomic holdings in order to make them economic ones. Now what has happened in this case? What did the hon. member suggest? He suggested the ordinary procedure followed in cities and towns. If there is any State-owned land in cities and towns it is the procedure to offer that land to other Departments first. That is both essential and urgent. But here we have thousands of morgen of land which, according to the. Department of Forestry, it has to look after at a high cost but which it cannot afforest. That land is not suitable for the purpose for which it has been set aside.

Now what did the hon. member for South Coast suggest? He suggested that it should be offered to the Departments. What Department will be able to use it profitably? To my mind only a provincial council may be able to make use of that land. The only purpose, according to the statements with which we have been furnished, for which it can be used, is probably grazing. In other words, a game reserve, or something of that nature, will have to be established there. The hon. member suggested that that land should be offered to the other Departments first. To which Department? To the provincial administration? Other Departments cannot be interested in that land. The procedure which has been followed throughout the years is to leave the question of the advantageous disposal of land to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Surely the hon. member does not want that State-owned land, seeing that there is such a tremendous land hunger in South Africa, to lie idle, something which is uneconomic and costly. I think that is a crime against the South African nation. We must follow the procedure laid down in legislation by this Parliament. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure can either use that land as settlement land or consolidate it with an adjoining land or land situated nearby so that it may be used to the advantage of the country as a whole. The hon. member, however, suggested that this land should still be used for impracticable purposes for a long time in the future. To my mind the agricultural sector is entitled to the land being made available. This land which is being used so impractically at present, must be made available according to the procedure laid down in legislation and in the spirit of that legislation. Mr. Chairman, surely you cannot expect the provincial council or the State taking the only other step which is allowed, namely to afforest the land in competition with the ordinary private owner of forests—something which will have to be done by the Department of Forestry. That is a long-term policy. Just as the State will not open a large shop in Adderley Street in competition with private undertakings, similarly the State cannot be allowed to compete with private initiative by starting a farm on that land. What farming activities can be conducted on this 1,000 morgen of land? The provincial council may establish a game reserve there. Now we ask ourselves, “Does Natal not have a sufficient number of reserves?” Reserves are dotted all over that province. You will not allow me to speak on that subject, but I think that the time has arrived for Natal to take a look at its game reserves and consolidate them. Natal must not be allowed to establish another game reserve of 1,000 morgen. That will be situated away from the other reserves. How can any Department make efficient use of this land? There is no alternative; one must either allow the land to lie idle which is uneconomic and impracticable or one must allow the land to be transferred to a Department by means of the machinery created by this Parliament. The Department may then form an opinion and dispose of the land in terms of the resolution of the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the hon. member for South Coast in his objection to this proposal. The hon. member for South Coast has not suggested that the land must not be disposed of. That is not his point—he never said it must not be disposed of. If the land is suitable for the Department of Forestry …

I accept that.

… then there is no objection to it being disposed of. But the point is: How must it be disposed of? The hon. member suggests that it should be offered to the other state departments. If there are other state departments which can make good use of it then we should allocate it to them. That is the main point. The hon. member for Christiana does not seem to like the idea that it should go to the Parks Board. [Interjections.] He does not like the idea. [Interjections.] No.6 is allocated to the Parks Board and it is only 200 morgen. If that is suitable, why cannot we allocate, for instance, 1,000 morgen to the Parks Board? It can go to them and it can be usefully preserved for posterity in our country. We have also changed what we used to do in the past by adding certain provisos, something we never did in the past. Case No. 6 has the proviso that the land must not be alienated to private interests. We are adopting that attitude—State land should not easily be allocated to private interests.

What also worries me is the way in which we are going to dispose of this land. Here is a piece of land 1,000 morgen in extent, and according to the report by the Department it is not an economic unit, and therefore it cannot be allocated or sold to a farmer to farm on— it is too small. It will then, under the circumstances, go to one or two of the neighbouring farmers. Once we have released the ground, the only people who can compete for it are the neighbouring farmers.

Not necessarily.

Order! The hon. member for Christiana must please give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, by releasing it like this we are playing into the hands of the one or two people adjoining the land, who can pay for that piece of land virtually what they want to pay. That is how it will end up. That is wrong. Therefore I support the hon. member when he says it should be offered to the other departments so that it can be retained in the interests of the public of South Africa. We should do that before handing it over to private enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite assume that one can deal with State-owned land in one way only. The State does not only have land, like this land, which it has inherited or which it has retained for certain reasons. In addition it is purchasing land every day. The State has purchased a great deal of land at the Orange River, land not required for the purposes of dam construction, but land which is situated outside the dam site, land to which the State i has a claim.

Yes, for certain reasons.

Yes, for certain reasons, but the fact remains that that land which is situated outside the dam site belongs to the State at present. That land is being made available for certain purposes. If parks have to be established in the public interest, certain parts of that land will be made available for the establishment of parks which will then be under provincial control or under the control of the Parks Board, although more specifically under provincial control. It will be possible to keep game in those parks. Land will be given for recreational facilities. But where we have land which is suitable for agricultural purposes we are not going to ask every Government Department whether it wants to erect a building or establish a park on that land. Surely that is obvious. This land, 1,000 morgen in extent, was under the control of the Department of Forestry. It is situated a long way from any other forestry complex. The fact of the matter is that this land is uneconomic for forestry purposes because it is situated a great distance from any existing forestry complex and because it is unsuitable for afforestation. A very small percentage of that land is suitable for afforestation. The fact of the matter is that that land is not required for soil conservation purposes in order to protect sponge areas. The Department who has to exercise control over this land must see to it that such State-owned land is not misused. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of this fact but there are large areas in our country where Forestry has to exercise control over land but where control cannot be exercised in such a way as to prevent people from all over entering and using that land. And this is one of the places where one cannot exercise such control. What now happens is the following: Forestry states that the land is not suitable for forestry purposes; Agricultural Technical Services states that it does not need that land for sponge or water conservation. The land then reverts to Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. If the Government wants to give away all the land it has purchased or which it owns all over the country to local authorities or divisional councils to establish national parks or game reserves or fauna and flora reserves, they will take all that land whether or not they are able to exercise control over it. Not one of them will be prepared to buy that land from the State. Now this Department states: Because this land is unsuitable for those purposes, we want to deal with that land as though it is ordinary State-owned land which we have at our disposal. A great deal of the land in the Northern Transvaal on which farming activities are being carried on at present was State-owned land at some time.

You can do better than that.

The hon. member knows that that is the case. Take the farms which have been allotted in the other provinces and in the Northern Transvaal, in the Transvaal lowveld. To whom did that land belong originally? It was State-owned land.

That is no argument.

The State used to own a great deal of other land, just as it now owns this land, before it was allotted. We are on the Makatini Flats as far as State-owned land is concerned. Does the hon. member want to suggest that that State-owned land on the Makatini Flats may not be allotted for agricultural purposes until such time as all the provincial administrations and all the local authorities and all the departments have been consulted? If that is to be the case, shall we defeat the whole object of our existence as a Department.

Be your age. You should not talk about the Makatini Flats.

This land is going to be allotted under the Act, and hon. members must not think that if there are two farmers whose land borders on that land that they can be the only applicants for that land and that they may buy it if they make offers for that land. After all, we have passed legislation in this Parliament to prescribe how land is to be disposed of. That Act provides that land may only be allotted in order to make a unit an economic one. After an investigation has been conducted by the Board and the Board has certified that the applicant does not have an economic unit, he qualifies for that land, but if he has an economic unit he does not qualify for that land.

I bet you who gets it.

The Department may also sell the land by public tender but that is not the intention. The provisions of the Act will be complied with. As I have already said, if there are neighbouring owners who do not have economic units the Board will conduct an investigation and will recommend whether they ought to get a part of that land so as to make their units economic ones. If in the case of every piece of State-owned land which becomes available we want to force the Department of Agricultural Credit, in whatever way —in this way or in any other way—to consult all the provincial administrations and local authorities first in order to ascertain whether they are interested, I can tell hon. members even now that what will happen will be the following: If they can get the land for nothing, they will all be interested. The Provincial Administration of the Free State will be prepared to take everything which one wants to give away and this also applies to the Cape Province and to the Transvaal. No, Sir, I think the hon. member for Christiana gave a very clear explanation of this matter. Since the land is not suitable for forestry purposes and can only be used for agricultural purposes to some extent, and since it is situated at a place where one can only use it as a game reserve or a flora reserve over which it will be difficult to exercise control, it is better to allot this land to adjoining owners or to others in that vicinity so as to place them on an economic basis once more.

Recommendation No. 9 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Recommendation No. 9 accordingly agreed to.

I want to refer to Item 117.05 on page 20, which we have already discussed on two occasions in this House. I am afraid that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not proved to us the correctness of his case in this matter and we are as unconvinced as ever that this is an equitable tax. Nor are we at all convinced by the arguments of the hon. member for Queenstown. This attitude which hon. members opposite take from time to time of working out additional taxation and dividing it by years or months or weeks and saying that the taxpayer will only have to pay an extra R2 per annum or R1 a month or 5 cents a week does not impress us. What are the facts of the matter? If you take the tax on motor-cars as applied last year and as increased this year, it means that the motorcar users this year will be paying in additional tax R12 million more than they paid two years ago. I think the hon. member for Queenstown will agree with me that R12 million out of the Dockets of a sector of the community can hardly be airily disregarded. It is no use saying that we only have to use our old cars for 2½ months longer. The position at the moment is that most of us are using our cars until they fall to pieces, anyway. Therefore I want to move the following amendment—

I do not want to make much further response to what the hon. member for Parktown said. However, supposing that everything he said is true, the fact still remains that when the Estimates were prepared a certain amount of tax had to be found, and if one could not find the R12 million in taxes here, one would have had to find it somewhere else. What his motion actually signifies is that he does not want a tax on cars, but he wants the taxpayers of the country to be taxed somewhere else. Even if his argument were correct to a certain degree, it still remains my point of view and that of the Government that it was a question of a choice for the Minister, and he preferred to impose it here where he thought it constituted the lightest burden on the country and on the people and not, as the hon. member is suggesting, somewhere else where it would impose a heavier burden on our people. That is the only explanation I can give.

The argument which the hon. member for Queenstown has just advanced for this taxation is quite unacceptable. In fact, he admits that motorists have been selected as the deliberate target for taxation. That is what it amounts to. He says even if all our arguments are right it makes no difference because the Minister has deliberately and by specific choice singled out the motorist as a target for additional taxation, and he makes no attempt to refute our arguments. Our point is that the motorist is continually being singled out for taxation. He, in the case of easily applicable selective taxes, is the target against whom discrimination is always being applied when it comes to taxation. We felt that this discrimination has now gone far enough and that we cannot support it any longer. If there was ever justification for our case, it is the argument which we have just heard. The hon. the Minister himself, without saying it as blatantly as the hon. member for Queenstown said, implied that if he did not get the money here, he would have to get it somewhere else. It was an implied discrimination against the motorist, but the hon. member for Queenstown has now made it clear beyond any doubt what this is. It is a punitive tax on motorists and we are opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out one thing to the hon. member for Queenstown. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister of Finance’s Budget speech for this year, where he disclosed to the House that he had surpluses. It is not a question of needing this money. The fiscus does not need the money. They had a surplus last year. What have they done with it? This is what the hon. the Minister said—

He does not need the funds. He has decided to make an attack on the poor innocent motorist year after year, burdening him with additional taxation. Hon. members opposite and the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot make out a case for this additional taxation. Therefore, in the interests of the public, we must support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members are objecting a great deal to the extra R6 million which is being levied by way of taxation this year. After all, they must do something before we adjourn, because so far this is the only little thing they have found to talk about this year. Other than that they have nothing. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown a question in respect of the abolition of this motor-car tax of R6 million. The hon. member knows that when the Minister of Finance introduced his Estimates this year, he announced certain concessions. For instance, there is the relief granted in respect of students. There are quite a number of cases of relief. Taken together they amount to R6 million.

Name them.

There was, for instance the R2.8 million in respect of pensions. I do not have the figures before me. The Minister made concessions to the amount of R6 million. Now I want to put a question to the hon. member for Parktown. We could have said that we would not introduce this tax of R6 million. Should the Government then omit those concessions which amount to R6 million? Yes or no? The hon. member must be honest now. The hon. member for Yeoville shakes his head. He always does that. He has shaken his head so often that it has become like a whirligig. If we do not impose these taxes, we must give up something.

Why?

Because these Estimates must balance. Now I shall come back to the surplus.

I want to point out to the hon. member that we are now dealing with a specific item. The hon. member must confine himself to that item. I do not want a Second Reading speech about the Estimates that were introduced.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. In respect of this tax on motorcars, I want to say that the motor-car industry in South Africa is able to bear this tax. We find that there is a record sale of motor-cars. The first thing that happens when prices are too high, is that sales decline. One does not pay an absurd price for an item if one does not consider it to have that value. Is that not proof of the fact that the price of motor-cars is still too low? It is proved by the fact that the public still buys at this high price. If this tax had been R12 million instead of R6 million, it would still have been the same. We must impose our taxes in quarters where the public is able to bear them. That is why I say that this tax is not too high. It is just. In spite of the fact that, where possible, the Government does not want to increase taxes, certain services must be provided. This tax can cover those services.

Mr. Chairman, consequent upon speeches made about this matter, I explained last night that this tax is only a full tax in respect of people who do not buy motor-cars for essential purposes. It is in actual fact an effective tax only in respect of 60 percent thereof. It is in respect of those persons; who purchase motor-cars, and use them in connection with earning income. Across the floor of the House the hon. member for Parktown and I agreed on that matter to such a great extent that I thought that he would be sensible enough to abandon this amendment of his. Unfortunately he did not, and as the hon. member will also appreciate, it is not possible for me to accept that amendment. We have already exhausted this matter by way of our discussions here. I really do not think that there is any need for me to go into its merits once again.

Question put: That the tariff item stand part of the Schedule.

Upon,which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Schedule No. 1, as printed, put and agreed to.

Schedule No. 6:

Mr. Chairman, we objected at the Second Reading and we object again now to the new tax imposed on Bantu beer. [Interjections.] The hon. member is quite correct. It is made from kaffir corn. We do so for three specific reasons. The first is health. It is accepted by all medical authorities that Bantu beer is a health-giving drink and that it contains vitamins and is essential for good health and in fact plays a part in counteracting malnutrition. It is one of the major problems in South Africa to ensure that all our people are properly nourished and that their health is properly cared for. Therefore we object to taxation on an item which is essential for the health of a large section of the people. We object secondly because this taxation is once again discriminatory. [Interjections.] We do not want it applied to the smaller quantities and to institutions with under 25 employees. It indicates that this is purely a fund-raising tax. It is a tax which by taking money away from the municipalities and the employers is obviously going to lead to an increase in price and therefore the passing on of this increase to the consumer. Thirdly we believe that this is wrong because it is in conflict with the pattern which the Government itself pretends to follow of encouraging the drinking of the less alcoholic drinks. Spirits which are harmful and habit forming to a greater extent than Bantu beer are encouraged by taxation on ordinary beer, Bantu beer and unfortified wines. Therefore we feel that it is our duty on this side of the House to lodge our objection to this tax and to move its deletion. This I do by moving—

I am afraid that this amendent is out of order because it would involve increased taxation requiring the State President’s recommendation. The tax is 61 cents and it is being proposed here that there should be a 100 per cent rebate except for 2 cents. What the hon. member is proposing now is that nothing should be exempted. In other words, there should be a tax of 61 cents in all cases.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this is a different kind of tax. You cannot maintain that there is going to be an increase in taxation.

Order! It is an increase in taxation. The taxation is 61 cents. The proposal is to reduce it to 2 cents and the hon. member wants to delete the reduction.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is a different kind of tax altogether. It is not the same tax.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the Committee on this iniquitous tax which has been imposed. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, the consumption of this beverage has been encouraged by the Government because not only is it something traditional to the Bantu but it is also a health-giving drink. During 1964 we found that the consumption of this beverage exceeded that of all other intoxicating liquors in South Africa by over 30 million gallons. Other liquor was available to them, but notwithstanding that, the Bantu people still consumed over 30 million gallons more. This was because of the reasons given by the hon. member for Durban (Point). As regards the health aspect of this beverage, I particularly want to mention that this beverage has a very high content of vitamin B1 and a very high content of niacin which combats pellagra which is a deficiency disease. Nutrition experts throughout the world have encouraged the consumption hereof.

Order! What has that got to do with the schedule?

I am working up to the point of this iniquitous tax … [Interjections.]

Order! This is not a Second Reading debate.

I agree, Mr. Chairman.

Then the hon. member does not have a case to make out in the direction he is taking now.

We find that in 1964 the production of Bantu beer was worth over R19 million. From the profit derived from the production of this beer, R64 million was spent on the provision of amenities, on subsidized housing, and so on, for the Bantu people in the urban areas. The effect of this taxation will be that R2.6 million will this year be removed from the coffers of the urban authorities, and the Bantu people will suffer to the extent of R2.6 million during this year.

Terrible!

I agree entirely with the hon. member—I am glad to find somebody on that side who agrees with me on this matter. This is an iniquitous tax. It is direct taxation of the Bantu people.

It is cruel.

I agree that it is a cruel taxation on the Bantu people who will in addition have no say as regards what the Government is going to spend that money on. Will the Government be spending the money on ideological legislation …

Order! The hon. member is making a Second Reading speech now. If he persists, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for your guidance, please? You have ruled the amendment moved by my colleague to be out of order and therefore we cannot discuss it. We on this side of the House wish to vote against this particular tax. What I should like to have your guidance on is how are we to vote against this tax if we cannot move an amendment? Can we not vote against the tax?

The hon. member can vote against anything.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to help the hon. Opposition in their fight, otherwise they will eventually find themselves in the same position as Egypt. I just want to say something in order to eliminate uncertainty in regard to the item to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred. Under the sub-head “Item” of Schedule No. 6—on page 44 of the Bill— one finds the figure 609.04.10. If that whole item is deleted it will mean that a duty of 61½ cents per gallon will in actual fact be imposed upon Bantu beer. Provision is being made here for a rebate, namely in subsection (1) in which provision is being made for the full rabate less 2 cents. In other words, this is the 2 cents that remains after the rebate of 61½ cents less 2 cents has been deducted. Therefore, that amount of 2 cents is the duty on Bantu beer. In other words, if the hon. member wants to propose that there should be no duty on Bantu beer, he should merely move that subsection (1) be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for trying to assist. But I have another amendment which I wish to move. Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The effect of this will be to get a full rebate. Although I am grateful to the Deputy Minister for trying to help us, we have achieved the same end ourselves.

Question put: That the words “less 2c per gal.” stand part of the Schedule.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Schedule No. 6, as printed, put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by giving a long explanation of the provisions of this measure. The main object of the Bill is to give effect to the taxation proposals relating to income-tax, non-resident shareholders’ tax and non-residents’ tax on interest. It also amends the Income Tax Act in order to provide for the concessions announced in the Budget Speech, including the leveling of scales for farmers in respect of taxable income derived from farming.

In essence there is little difference between this Bill and the Bill that was published in the Government Gazette of 10th May, 1967, for general information and for comment. Very little comment has been received and from that I infer that no real objection to any of the provisions of the measure could be found.

Hon. members will notice that the Bill before the House consists of 36 clauses and the Schedule, while the gazetted Bill contained only 28 clauses and the Schedule. Seven of the eight clauses that have been added are of a consequential or textual nature, while one, namely clause 19, effects an amendment in respect of the exemptions from the undistributed profits tax in order to remove an anomaly which came to light.

As a result of the insertion of the new clauses the numbers of the existing provisions had to be changed, and therefore the numbers of some of the provisions of the Bill differ from those of the gazetted Bill. For the convenience of hon. members the numbers as they appeared in the gazetted Bill are indicated in the explanatory memorandum on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the Bill are self-explanatory and, in addition, are explained in the said memorandum.

The Minister has indicated in the course of his remarks that new principles have been introduced in the course of the drafting of this Bill, particularly with regard to the tax on interest in the case of non-resident investors. My attention has been drawn to certain anomalies in this connection. In the brief time available it has not been possible to get information from all parties concerned but there is some foundation for the remarks which have been made to me, which briefly are as follows:

Many importers and exporters in South Africa make use of overseas Acceptance Credits, the majority of which are handled by London merchant bankers. The procedure in relation to an Acceptance Credit to cover imports is normally that the importer arranges for a London bank to pay for the goods being imported by him and when the transaction takes place, draws a bill on the merchant bank which is accepted by the merchant banker and discounted on the London Bill Market. The proceeds of the discount are utilized by the merchant banker to reimburse himself for the amount paid for imports. When the bill falls due for payment the importer remits funds to meet the amount due on maturity. There are two charges levied on the importer. The first is a commission charged by the London banker for his acceptance of the bill, which makes the bill discountable. The second charge is the discount which the purchaser of the bill charges for his services in holding the bill, from the date of discount to the date of maturity. In dealing with exports a similar procedure is followed, except that the exporter draws a bill on the oversea merchant bank and receives immediately cash less the merchant banker’s accepting commission and the discount charge, the merchant banker in this case being reimbursed by the receipt of the proceeds of the goods exported directly from the buyer.

In the proposed section 64C (e), the more common form of financing imports is exempt, but in the case of oversea Acceptance Credits there is no bill of exchange handled by Republic banking institutions and, therefore, the transactions would not be exempt in terms of this section. From the very nature of an Acceptance Credit, the local user of such credit has no connection with the recipient of the discounting charges. Merchant bankers operating overseas would not be in a position to pass on to any non-resident shareholder the interest tax deducted since they deal with a very large number of bills, very few of which originate from South African accounts, and such bills change hands in the London market. I submit that this is an aspect which has not been taken into account. This interest tax on non-resident investors is a new principle imported into this Bill—it is the first time that it is applied in this country; there has in the past been a non-resident shareholder’s tax, but not a tax on the interest of non-residents. I do not quarrel with the principle of an interest tax on non-residents, because that principle is applied in many countries, but this is a particular aspect which I suggest has not been given adequate consideration.

During the course of the discussions in the Committee of Ways and Means we discussed the rates of tax and the scale of taxation and the Minister will see from the Bill he has introduced that clause 1 re-enacts section 5 (2) of the original Act. the 1962 Act, which was a consolidating Act. That Act has a Schedule attached to it, and this Act which we are now discussing re-enacts the Schedule. That Schedule shows a rate of taxation in respect of different income brackets, and depending on the person’s income so is his rate of tax fixed. During the course of the Second Reading we referred the Minister to the advisability of eliminating the bulge in respect of the income tax brackets from R4,600 up to R8,000. We reiterate our protest and the necessity for the Minister’s looking into it. I would remind the Minister that arguments have been used suggesting that South Africa’s taxation is lower than many other countries, but I would remind the Minister that the income tax charged in the case of a married man with two children in South Africa in the bracket R6,000 and over is higher than in France. In the bracket R8,000 and over, the income-tax paid by a married man with two children is higher than in France and Germany, and in the bracket R11,000 it is higher than in France, Germany and the U.S.A. I suggest that there was some substance in the recommendation made by Mr. J. A. Kotze, the chairman of the Pretoria Afrikaanse Sakekamer, when he said that the Government should appoint a commission of inquiry to bring the income-tax structure up to date and to remove the anomalies contained therein. I do not necessarily agree with all his recommendations, but the object of the Minister of Finance’s taxing machine is not only to collect revenue to meet the expenditure of the State. The object of his taxation proposals is also to endeavour to ensure that the incentive attitude is maintained and that there will be an incentive on the part of all taxpayers.

While the State is entitled to get its share of the tax there should be some incentive particularly in the professional classes and the higher income brackets for them to continue increasing their income. He gives various examples, but as I say, I do not necessarily agree with the brackets he suggests and I would not submit any alternative brackets because you cannot submit an alternative bracket unless you know the effect of that alternative. The Minister has had a motion before this House whereby the expenditure of the country has been put before the country, and therefore it is the duty of the Minister to raise sufficient by way of taxes to discharge that expenditure. What we are concerned with is the rates of tax which the Minister claims will discharge the indebtedness, and we urge the Minister to give consideration to varying those rates so that while he can get the same amount of income, he will distribute that tax in such a way as to put a more equitable burden on the taxpayers which they can share as a whole. I would draw his attention to one or more anomalies.

One anomaly is the case of the professional man or the private individual who is taxed whereas a company is allowed to go free. If the Minister will refer to clause 11 of the Bill, it makes provision for deductions for income-tax purposes for donations to universities. Clause 11 re-enacts the provision for deductions which was made in former years where a business firm was encouraged to make donations to educational institutions. The Minister said that the whole object of that was to encourage companies to support our educational institutions, to encourage research and to increase our productivity. I submit that if that is a good principle, and the Minister says it is, then consideration should be given to granting a similar facility to the professional man. Doctors, engineers, accountants and architects are frequently called upon by the various universities in South Africa to make donations to the various faculties, particularly those faculties concerned with their own profession. It means that if they give donations they get no rebate, but if on the other hand they are associated with companies, they can make those donations because companies get the advantage of the rebate in terms of clause 11 of this Bill. I submit that the Minister should give careful consideration to the advisability of extending this right to professional people or to any individual who intends to give a donation to a university for educational or research purposes.

Then there is another class of person to which I would refer. That is the divorcée. I have an article here which says that since 1962 the distinction seems quite arbitrary and there is no apparent reason why it should be maintained. I know it is not public policy to encourage divorce, but there are many cases where a wife is in a position where she may be the innocent party. She has children to bring up and yet she is taxed as a single person and not as a married person. In the first place, this article says there is an inexplicable difference in the rate of taxation for a widow and for a divorcée. For tax purposes the widow is still regarded as a married person, whereas a divorced woman is considered to be single and pays a higher rate of tax. Furthermore, the lowest taxable incomes differ. The widow’s income is free of tax up to R800. but that of the divorcée only up to about R500. Owing to the different primary rebates this means that in effect a widow earning up to R870 is free of tax. but a divorced woman must pay tax after she earns over R580. This represents a considerable burden on the divorcée. In law a divorce ends marriage as effectively as death. I submit that this is an anomaly in the Act. This was a matter which was recognized in 1962 and it was changed by the Minister’s predecessor. and I submit that this matter warrants inquiry.

I suggest that, while we can point out anomalies during the course of the Budget debate, where the time is limited, and while we can also do so in ways and means, when it comes to a question of taxation as a whole and general improvements on the Act, time in Parliament is very limited and the debating rules of the House are so circumscribed that one cannot go into detail during the course of the Session. I submit that the time has arrived, having regard to the fact that it is nearly 20 years since the last commission of inquiry was held, that the Minister should give serious consideration to ironing out some of these anomalies and appoint a commission of inquiry to go into the whole question of taxation with a view to seeing that many of the anomalies are eliminated, and that the incidence of tax is more equitably borne by the taxpayers as a whole. It should also be ensured that, while the Minister may be required to get the total amount of tax in order to meet the expenditure of the country, taxation is distributed on a more equitable basis, so as to ensure that the anomalies which I have suggested are given consideration, and also to ensure that the incentive aspects are maintained in the interest of productivity and of the country as a whole.

We have a new Income Tax Bill each year. I want to agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that each year, instead of the Income Tax Bill removing some of the anomalies we find in the Act, they seem to be increased. This year, in terms of clause 20, we are taxing overseas loans, where interest is paid to an overseas creditor, whether the agreement for the loan is concluded in the Republic or not. There used to be a time— probably some people will maintain that it is still the case—when the principle of taxation in this country was the source of the income. We were not concerned with domicile, whether a person lived here or not. We were concerned with his income, where the source of the income was from the Republic of South Africa. We have moved away from that position from time to time, because circumstances have arisen where people were evading tax, for example by the registration of overseas companies, to reap the benefit of dividends from outside the country, and the investment abroad in certain types of financial institutions. Here we have a change of the fundamental principle in that source is no longer the basis on which to decide whether a person should be taxed or not. This is an anomaly which I think should be given some consideration.

There also is a question of medical allowances which is dealt with in clause 15. We are grateful to see that the allowance in respect of families who have children, has been increased from R200 to R300 for that year. I think there are two problems that should be considered in regard to this allowance. The first is whether it should not be a rebate instead of being an allowance. Because what is happening now, is that a person with a large income can deduct R200 from his income and in some cases, if we include the levy, save himself some 72 per cent, I think the figure is to-day, of that R200, whereas a person in the lower income group will save practically nothing. If it were a rebate the same amount would be deducted from tax in either case. That I think again is an anomaly. But further; in terms of clause 28 of this Bill we have introduced a new principle into our taxation this year, namely the principle of averaging. The farming community is now able to average its income over a period of five years for tax purposes. I asked last year that the hon. the Minister give consideration to at least averaging the allowance in regard to medical expenditure, because a person may incur an expenditure of only R10. R20 or R30 in one particular year, and in the following year, on account of ill fortune, have to incur expenditure of R400, R500, or R600. But he is limited to an allowance of R200. It seems to me that surely the average person is entitled to at least the same consideration as our estimable farmers, who can average their income and their taxation. In regard to this item of medical expenditure, it should first of all be a rebate and should, secondly, be able to be carried forward, for a period of years. If it remains as an allowance, it should be capable of being averaged.

Clause I of the Bill brings about a change in company taxation, and here again is an anomaly that we have not been able to get over for a long time. The hon. member for Pinetown dealt with it in brief. We used to have the apportionment system. We know that it did not function. But I think we also realize that the system as it is at the moment, where a company pays a flat rate of tax which amounts to 40 per cent including the levy, and other people pay a graduated scale of tax. there are anomalies which are unfair to a great number of people.

Order! Will the hon. member for Krugersdorp please speak more softly.

I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that we should find a formula, so that everybody would be satisfied, and so that the imposition of the tax would be fair. I think we all want that. In the past the difficulty has been to find a formula. There are other aspects in terms of the Act which are giving us trouble. For example, we have had discussions in this House on many occasions on the question of the taxation of the married woman. The principle was accepted, I think about two years ago, that where a woman has an income, there can be some alleviation in taxation on the joint income. The trouble, of course, is that this new rule helps the alleviation to such a limited extent that only in two brackets of income is the allowance, or the saving in tax of any material value. In one case it may be R130 and in the other R240. In the case of a joint income of R9,000 …

Speak up! We cannot hear a word. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! I want to point cut to hon. members that I have made an appeal to them. If hon. members persist in making interjections, I am going to take other steps against them. I now demand that they keep quiet.

Mr. Speaker, may I just explain?

Order! No. The hon. member for Park-town may proceed.

One finds the peculiar situation when there is a joint income of R9,000 and, although the taxes have now been joined together to assist married people, the saving is R9 per annum.

There are many other aspects which give the same problem. The hon. member for Pinetown suggested that the time has come perhaps for the Government to consider a commission. I want to bring to the notice of the House that in Canada the Royal Canadian Commission was appointed 44 years ago to inquire into income tax. It took them 4 years to investigate the problem. They spent $44 million and they produced six volumes, running into some 2,600 pages. I was fortunate enough, through the courtesy of the Canadian Embassy, to obtain a summary of Press releases dealing with this matter. It runs to some 200 pages. An enormous amount of time, money and attention has been spent, and we could make very good use of it. I think the time has come when one reads this report, for it is to become quite clear that our system wants some investigation. This commission, as a matter of interest, suggests that the present system of taxation be scrapped entirely, because it is not equitable. It is a system inherited, starting from the mother of parliaments, Great Britain, and adopted by the colonies and dominions. It has spread out and we have just taken the basis for granted. They suggest a system which is simplicity in itself, till one starts to examine it in detail. One takes a man’s capital at the beginning of a period. Then one takes his capital at the end of the period. What is spent on himself is added on and he is taxed on the difference, because that is the increase of his wealth. It does not matter whether it comes from gambling, donations, gifts, legacies, capital profits of anything else. And it has merit I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give some consideration in the not too distant future to create an opportunity to enable us to examine all these factors of taxation which appear in this Bill every year.

To start with I think I should deal with nonresident tax on interest and in that connection I think I owe a reply to the hon. member for Parktown about a matter which he raised in the Committee of Ways and Means and which I did not reply to properly. As I explained at that time, it is a very difficult subject to discuss across the floor of the House because it is very involved and not so easy to follow. The hon. member then said—

I did not at that time reply to the hon. member, and I would like to do it now. Firstly, the hon. member refers to investments. As I understand it an investment could really only be either in shares, or an investment of money for interest. If it is either of the two, or both, then one could hardly expect a tax loss, because you receive your interest or you do not receive your interest. And if you invest your money in shares, the least that you can get is nothing. In other words, how one can arrive at a tax loss when you have investments, I do not see. However, there is the possibility that a non-resident who live in England, for instance, may have a business in this country. Now, if it is a business run by a company, which is his company, then the company is taxed separately, so that it would not affect him either. This would only come about if he has a business in this country in his own name, in the same name that earns the interest. And although it is theoretically possible …

He might have a farm.

Yes, there is the possibility of farming. That is why I say that although it is theoretically possible, I think it is highly unlikely. I think the hon. member will probably agree with me. As regards the non-residents’ tax I would also like to give hon. members the following information because very evidently they are interested. Two-thirds of the 20 countries which were members of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation in 1963 tax interest arising in their territories in favour of non-residents. Certain countries do not allow the deduction of interest in the determination of the debtor’s taxable income unless the recipient of the interest also resides in the country and is taxable in that country. In its draft or model convention for the avoidance of double taxation the organization has adopted the principle that the country in which interest payable to non-residents arises, should be entitled to tax such interest, but the tax must not exceed 10 per cent of the amount of the interest. The country in which the recipient resides may also tax the interest and double taxation is in practice avoided by the country of residence agreeing either not to tax the interest or to allow the tax of the other country as a credit against its own tax. Apart from double taxation avoidance agreements, the tax laws of a number of the countries which tax their residents on all their income irrespective of the source of such income, provide for credits to be allowed in respect of foreign taxes.

*I do not think it is necessary to say any more about the question of non-residents’ tax on interest. I think I should rather continue and discuss the request which came from hon. members on that side that a commission on income tax be established. Hon. members will know that this matter …

While the hon. the Deputy Minister is dealing with investor’s interests, could he deal with the point which I raised?

Yes. The information I have on this matter, that is on acceptance credits, is that this matter has been investigated and as presently informed the Department holds the view that liabilities for the new tax will not arise, but if tax should arise, it does not represent an anomaly. I would now like to discuss the matter of the commission asked for.

*The hon. gentlemen asked once again that a commission be appointed, as they had asked on previous occasions. We will recall that previously, only last year, the matter was also raised and on that occasion the then Minister of Finance replied to it, inter alia, as follows—

I should also like to point out to the hon. members that the Steyn Commission carried out a very searching inquiry into the scope and the functioning of the Republic’s laws on income tax, with the exception of the tax payable by the gold mines. That was not investigated by the commission.

That was 20 years ago.

The committee commenced its activities in March, 1949, and concluded on 12th November, 1952. That is not 20 years ago, but 15 years ago.

Are not the facts these, that the Steyn Commission sat before 1948 and that the matter was then referred to a select committee of which Dr. Diederichs was the chairman and which was converted to a commission, which finally reported to Parliament in 1952?

The findings of the Steyn Commission were in any event further investigated. The committee commenced its activities in March, 1949, and concluded on 12th November, 1952, when it brought out its second and final report. The recommendations in the committee’s two comprehensive reports which appeared, were considered by the Income Tax Commission in 1953. Most of the recommendations which were not rejected by the Commission were incorporated in the Income Tax Act. Apart from those, other very important amendments have since been made to the Income Tax Act. I am thinking, for example, of the abolition of super tax, the introduction of the block rate, the concessions to industrialists and hotel owners, the pay-as-you-earn system, the system of averaging which has now been introduced. In fact, the position is that in the nature of matters the Income Tax Act is receiving constant attention. I think we may justly claim that the Income Tax Act is not allowed to become obsolete. Now the position is that hon. members come here and speak of anomalies, and on the basis of anomalies they find in the Act, they want to make out a case for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the Income Tax Act. I think everybody will agree that these few points and the anomalies which were mentioned this afternoon most certainly do not constitute a case to justify the appointment of a commission. Under the circumstances we contend that it is not justified to appoint a commission on the Income Tax Act at this stage. The hon. the Minister of Finance has informed me, however, that he is considering appointing a commission of much wider scope. The commission will not inquire only into the Income Tax Act but will inquire to a larger extent into the fiscal and monetary position in South Africa in general. Although I do not want to represent this as a definite prospect, the Minister of Finance is considering this matter at the moment, and for what it is worth, I should like to inform the hon. House of that.

I think I have dealt with the major matters raised by hon. members on the opposite side, and I therefore move.

Before the hon. the Deputy Minister resumes his seat, will he tell us something about the position of the divorcee? I do not think he has dealt with that.

I felt that this was not the time to discuss whether the position should continue as it is at the moment. It was mentioned here that a divorcee is assessed as an unmarried person. That is true. It was also said that a widower or a widow was assessed as a married person. That is also so. I do not think this matter is being considered with a view to a change. As for me, I think we should leave the matter at that, because this is not the appropriate time for discussing it. However, the hon. member for Parktown raised the question of married persons. I am sorry that I forgot to reply to that. The hon. member for Wynberg did not speak on that to-day, but she raised it on a previous occasion. Therefore I cannot credit her for that to-day, but I must credit the hon. member for Parktown for raising it to-day. He mentioned the instance of a married couple’s joint income of R9,000. The position of married couples is, briefly, that it is at present provided that the income of the one with the lowest income is divided by half and added to the income of the other. The scale is determined according to the joint income, on the sum of one, that is, on the largest income plus half of the lower income. The scale is determined on that basis, and on that scale the joint income is assessed. This applies to all cases up to a joint income of R8,000. In order that it should not be cut off bluntly at R8,000, the position is that from R8,000 upwards it “tapers”, as we used to say in the workshops in Salt River. It decreases gradually, with the result that when it reaches an income of R9,000, of which the hon. member for Parktown spoke, it has just about petered out. That is why the difference is only R9. If the hon. member had gone somewhat further, there would have been no difference.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for a deduction in respect of fees paid to dentists, medical practitioners, nursing homes or hospitals. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is prepared to give consideration to including in this deduction the costs of medicines where medicines are prescribed, particularly for elderly people. Elderly people especially derive much benefit from modern drugs. These are prescribed pills which in many cases they have to take for the rest of their lives. This becomes a very great burden. Quite often the doctors’ bills are small. They may go to a provincial hospital, and particularly in the case of old-age pensioners, they get medicines. Of course, an old-age pensioner would not be taxed, so that is not a good example. An elderly person with a limited income will pay only modest hospital charges, or possibly no hospital charges, and very nominal doctor’s charges. If they belong to a railway sick fund …

Order! I am afraid the hon. member may not discuss that. The amendment proposed in this clause only deals with the words underlined, that is, a child born to the taxpayer.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

The purpose of the present amendment is to establish a single point beyond any doubt. Since the proposed amendment to section 6 (6) will afford participants the right to transfer or cede their participation only after three years it is conceivable that an individual participant will want to make use of his right of cession of his own participation in the bond at an earlier stage. Apart from the fact that an important provision of the Bill could be invalidated in this way, the undesirability of this in respect of the mortgagor and the manager, whose affairs can be disrupted, is obvious, I have been informed that the rules of the existing scheme would make such action difficult, but I thought it desirable to regulate the matter so that it is unambiguous.

Instruction put and agreed to.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 1:

I move the following amendment—

Sir, I note that the hon. the Deputy Minister has agreed to an amendment in respect of this particular clause whereby the capital sum involved is reduced from R25,000 to R20,000. I think that this amendment which the Deputy Minister has put forward improves the Bill but at the same time I do not think it goes nearly far enough. I believe that if in this particular case the Deputy Minister had seen fit to reduce the amount to R10,000, he would also have had the backing of this side of the House in this particular matter. Let me give my reason for saying this. In the first instance I want to quote statistics relevant to some of the trust companies which operate these participation bond schemes. I refer, first of all, to a particular trust company in the Port Elizabeth area. This particular trust company has some 240 bonds totalling a sum of R1,800,000. Ninety per cent of these particular bonds are below R20,000 and it is quite obvious that in this particular case the amendment which the Deputy Minister has introduced is going to interfere very radically with the kind of business this particular trust company is doing. Then let us take another case, a case in the platteland. There you have a trust company which has some 138 bonds totalling some R2 million, all of which are also below the R20,000 mark. Therefore in this particular case too very definite hardship will result and their normal course of business will be interfered with. One finds this pattern right throughout the country. What holds good for the platteland also holds good for the trust companies that operate in Port Elizabeth, in Cape Town, in Bloemfontein and Kroonstad. The pattern of their bonds is the same throughout. We on this side of the House find it difficult to understand why the Deputy Minister has introduced this legislation which is very definitely going to interfere with the normal bona fide activities of these trust companies. They have been doing this kind of business for a very long period of time. They have given a great deal of assistance in financing the country’s normal activities. I do not believe that the financing which the trust companies have done, has been inflationary in any sense of the word. I therefore think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should try to meet the trust companies in this particular regard. We on this side of the House realize that there has been a certain amount of abuse of the Participation Bond Act which was placed on the Statute Book in 1964—we readily acknowledge that—but the abuse has certainly not come from the trust companies who were responsible for initiating this legislation in 1964. I have no hesitation in saying that they have not abused the privileges which have been accorded to them under the Act in any way whatsoever. Many mushroom organizations have sprung up and it is those organizations which have been largely responsible for the abuse on the privileges accorded to an institution under this particular Act. I believe that for these reasons we have every right to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously to reconsider his amendment and to see if he cannot meet us by reducing this figure down to R10,000, at which level I believe he will achieve his objective which is to curtail this inflationary financing against which he is legislating here. At the same time he will in no way interfere with the normal activities of the trust companies which have played such an important and vital role in the financing of housing, farming projects, small businessmen, factory owners, etc.—bona fide business which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as inflationary financing. Therefore I wish to move the following amendment—

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer. Sir, this move is supported by trust companies in Bloemfontein, Kroonstad. Port Elizabeth, East London, Kimberley and Graaff-Reinet. As the hon. member has said, this type of financing particularly interests those in small businesses and farmers. Most of this business does not take business away from the building societies. This is a type of business which is not done by the building societies or by the banks. It may be done by the Land Bank but as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, the Land Bank nowadays considerably curtails the credit facilities offered to people. This type of business has been done by the trust companies for many years. It is only in recent years that participation bonds have been receiving quite a considerable amount of publicity, i.e. after the passing of the 1964 Act. This type of business is particularly popular in the country districts where people want medium-term finance. While in the big cities such as Durban, Johannesburg and Cape Town the figure indicated by the Deputy Minister may seem to be a reasonable one, the trust companies in the country districts have pointed out that not only will this seriously affect the interested parties, but that in many cases it will force these companies to close their doors. I suggest that having regard to the representations made and the very excellent case put forward by the hon. member for Walmer. the hon. the Deputy Minister should give serious consideration to the amendment.

At the outset I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that we are giving this matter our thorough attention. As regards the hon. member who spoke first, I want to say that he must consider that the purpose of the application of this clause and the increased amount is, to a large extent, to protect the sound business activities of the established trust companies. I do not know whether hon. members are aware to what extent this matter has got out of hand recently. I do not think the hon. members realize this. In my Second Reading speech I informed hon. members of the large amount which had already been included in the schemes, and we expect that in future an annual amount of perhaps R60 million or R70 million will be involved in those schemes. But what is also important, is the fact that the number of these schemes has increased so tremendously. I have been informed that there are cases where a scheme was initiated in an attorney’s office last year in which more than R2 million has already been invested to-day. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Walmer whether it is not in our interests to restrict this type of business to good, established institutions such as the trust companies, because of the great risks attaching to mortgages? [Interjections.] Hon. members who are asking why do not know what is going on. There are risks attached to this business because there is no departmental control over these matters as there is over financial institutions. Take one factor as an example, i.e. the question of security. There is no control over the security which is being accepted for these participation bonds, and if these things are not controlled and managed by responsible people it is clear that people are going to suffer losses. Then hon. members will of course say that there should have been better supervision. It is for that reason that I feel that it was never the intention that there should be a multitude of these small schemes participating in these activities. If it was a responsible and established trust company, I am convinced that it would be able to finance these small bonds out of its own funds and that it would use the participation bond to finance the larger bonds. In that way we will also be helping to see to it that we do not establish these small, unsound schemes, which would otherwise have arisen. No, we have investigated this matter carefully and we feel that we must do something in this direction. I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary to say what the amount should be, but R10,000 is probably not a sensible amount to decide on. In fact, I personally think that R20,000 is too little. Originally we thought R50,000 would be the right amount, but we have now come down to R20,000. I think the hon. member for Walmer must admit that we have already been very fair. We would be destroying the entire effort if we were to comply with his request.

Omission of the word “twenty-five” in line 17 put and agreed to.

Substitution of the word “ten” put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. G. King will accordingly negatived.

Substitution of the word “twenty”, proposed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 put and negatived.

New clause to follow clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

2. Section 6 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

1. (a) by the addition of the following proviso to subsection (2):
   • “Provided that where any such right to repayment of the principal debt secured by the bond is granted to such holder on or after the date of commencement of the Participation Bonds Amendment Act, 1967, he shall not be entitled to enforce against the mortgagor his right to recover any amount owing by the mortgagor in terms of such bond unless a period of not less than three years has elapsed after such right was granted to him”; and
2. (b) by the substitution for subsection (6) of the following subsection:
   1. “(6) A participant shall have the right to transfer, cede or encumber his rights in a participation bond without the consent of the mortgagor, provided—
      1. (a) he has obtained the prior written consent of the manager to such transfer, cession or encumbrance; and
      2. (b) in the case of any such transfer or cession—
         1. (i) Where he acquires his rights in such participation bond on or after the date of commencement of the Participation Bonds Amendment Act, 1967, a period of not less than three years has elapsed after he acquired such rights; or
         2. (ii) the registrar approves such transfer or cession.”

The new clause makes provision that the period for which participants must place their investments in these participation bonds, be a period of three years and not four as was originally published in the Bill. I want to plead again here on behalf of the trust companies in South Africa that this period be reduced to two years. The position is that the trust companies for their financing are obviously using long-term investments. I would say that 95 per cent of the moneys which the trust companies are using in the participation bond schemes, is money that is there on a long-term basis. I think it is hardly reasonable to expect anybody that is investing money to bind themselves for a period as long as three years. In many cases the intention is there to invest the money for a much longer period of time, but I think it is only human nature to expect that where you have to commit yourself to leaving that money in that particular investment for a period as long as three years, that investors would be very reticent to do so. I think it must be clear that even if your intention is to invest for a long time you do not know what may happen tomorrow. Let me quote a simple case. There may be many people here who may perhaps like to send money over to Israel to assist that country in its present war effort. Now, what would be the position if their money was now tied up in one of these participation bond schemes for a period of three years. They no longer have access to it and they cannot borrow money against the strength of that investment. That would put them obviously in a very difficult position. That kind of thing may happen to any investor. No investor knows what is going to happen tomorrow. Therefore, quite obviously, he is going to be reluctant to commit himself to this period of three years. And that being so, the net result of this legislation is going to be that the normal sources from which the trust companies have derived all their funds over all these years, and which they have used so well in financing so many of the important aspects of our economic life, the sources of investment capital, are going to dry up. And that is going to have a very serious effect on the activities of these trust companies.

I therefore again appeal to the hon. the Minister to be more reasonable in this matter and to reduce this period to a period of two years. After all two years is a longer period than that which the deposit-receiving institutions are restricted to. I refer now to the building societies and even in the case of their paid-up permanent shares, which are only bound up for a period of 18 months. So if you take a period of two years you are exeeding the period to which they are restricted. Therefore, I feel that with two years the Minister will again achieve the objectives which he is trying to achieve through this legislation, namely to eliminate the people that are abusing this participation bond scheme and at the same time he will not affect the normal activities of the trust companies which are playing such an important part in the normal financing of the country’s activities. I may say that when the trust companies initiated the Participation Bond Act in 1964, they had no thought of trying to invest hot money into their participation bond schemes. Their prime motive in initiating that legislation was to protect the investor.

That is not under discussion now.

I agree, Sir. I therefore finally wish to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter and to make this period two years. If he then finds that this two-year period is not having the desirable result, perhaps at a later stage he could amend the legislation and change the period to three years. But I suggest at this stage where this legislation has been introduced at such a late stage into Parliament, when we have not really been able to give our full consideration to it, we have not been able to examine it from all angles …

Order! I do not see what that has got to do with the matter under consideration. The hon. member has now during a period of six minutes asked for the reduction of the period to two years no less than nine times. He must please stop this repetition.

I want to move the following amendments to the proposed new clause—

I want to support the hon. member for Walmer. It is true that he mentioned he wanted a reduction in the period from three years to two years several times, but in each case he gave additional reasons. Now I want to give further reasons why this period should be reduced. The general practice in Cape Town and in Natal is three years, but in the Transvaal in respect of most trust companies the period is two years. This period of two years is the conventional period for trust bonds, and in respect of trust companies in some parts of the northern Cape the period is two years. And for these additional reasons, and for those which the hon. member gave about the building societies and the building society shares, I suggest that the Minister should give his consideration.

I think the hon. member for Walmer made out a good case as to why the period should be three years or preferably even longer. He began by emphasizing the fact that the trust companies, to which he referred, used long-term moneys. But if these trust companies used long-term money then surely they ought to have no problem. He pointed out that 95 per cent of the money which they use, is long-term money. If that is so then surely they ought to experience no difficulty in finding money for a period of three years.

That is not quite what he said.

That is what I understood him to say. He also said that this would discourage the investor or the participant in the bond. Of course that is true, and I realize it, and that is why we want to make provision for this measure. That is what we want. All we have to do is to provide a fair period, and the hon. member for Pine-town has given added support to my argument. If the period which they now want to lay down is already three years in certain cases and two years in other cases, then surely he cannot expect me to make the period shorter if it is specifically my intention to keep short-term money away there. It is after all my intention that we should not use short-term money for bonds, because for bonds one uses long-term money, particularly in the interests of the mortgagor. The hon. member spoke about building societies. Building societies can take in deposits for periods from one to five years. At the moment the longest period for which they can accept deposits, is 18 months, but they can accept deposits for periods of one to five years, and in all these circumstances I think it is not unfair if we stipulate that the period be three years, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

I just want to point out that, when I said that the trust companies were dealing with long-term money, that was quite correct. I raised that particular point to show that they are not responsible for these inflationary tendencies which the Minister is now legislating against. But the point I want to emphasize is that where the investor is called upon to give an undertaking that he will not claim his money back for three years, he is going to be reluctant to invest his money in these participation bond schemes. These bond schemes are the very lifeblood of the trust companies. The effect of this legislation is going to be to curtail the activities of these bona fide long-term investors to a very great extent. It is going to do a tremendous harm to a movement that has been tremendously beneficial over a very long period to the economy of this country.

Order! The hon. member is repeating now. He has been saying that over and over again.

Amendments proposed by Mr. W. G. King will put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

New clause to follow clause 1 put and agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are aware that, as the Building Societies Act reads at present, subscription shares must be paid out on the date of maturity. The motion which is now being put forward, is intended to make it possible for building societies to extend this date of maturity at the request of the shareholders. It is a concession to the building societies and will prevent the draining of funds as a result of the compulsory paying out of subscription shares on the date of maturity.

Instruction put and agreed to.

(Committee Stage)

New clause to follow clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be a new clause to follow clause 2—

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this new clause. It has been asked for by the British Society and is, furthermore, an improvement on the Bill.

New clause put and agreed to.

Title:

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to detain the House very long. However, I wish to deal with one point which was raised very pertinently by an hon. member on the other side during the Second Reading Debate. It is a matter which causes concern on this side of the House. We on this side have already said during the Second Reading —and I do not propose to repeat what was said—that we wash our hands of the consequences of this measure which the Government has brought forward without, in our opinion, sufficient facts being placed before Parliament. I wish to deal with a particular point which was stated by an hon. member on the other side and voiced most concisely and pertinently by, I think, the hon. member for Germiston. The point is this. In our export of canned fruit we must constantly bear in mind that there are two circumstances which determine our market, the profitability, and therefore the effectiveness of the machinery which is being established here, J refer namely to the quality and the price. This is what I want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister against. This is precisely where we can get shipwrecked. If there are two matters which are so involved in this matter that they sometimes count for naught, it is the quality and the price. This is the big lesson which we learnt in the Select Committee 11 years ago, namely that there are other factors that play such an important part that quality and price are not sufficient to ensure our entry into any particular market. Other factors, entirely separate from quality and price, are in issue. Since our discussion here the other day during the Second Reading Debate, I have been able to discuss the matter with a member for New Zealand who is in South Africa at the present time. He is a member of one of the control boards in New Zealand dealing with the marketing of a few types of canned fruit which they produce there. There exactly the same position has arisen as has arisen here. The quality of the product is leveled down as soon as there is a central marketing organization. Quality goes down. But, as I say, quality and price are not the determining factors. I leave this thought with the Deputy Minister. Do not let us find ourselves in that position. It may well happen that the central marketing board is going to create those very circumstances where reliance will be placed upon those two assumed principles which will be found to be broken reeds as far as the marketing of our products is concerned.

I wish to repeat that we on this side are not quarrelling with the Government because it feels that something should be done about the markets in a proper manner. The produce of our farmers in the form of tinned products, canned products, is in issue here. The farmer can market his fruit as fresh fruit, or he can find a different market for his produce in the form of canned fruits. We wish the farmer success, we want to help him, and we believe that Parliament should help him. But it is his produce, and we in Parliament should help him to find markets for that produce. But we on ‘his side are not satisfied that this Bill is the best instrument to be used in assisting the farmer to find the best market for his product in canned form. I leave this thought with the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in the half-minute remaining I just want to tell the hon. member that central marketing is not being envisaged in this measure. It is not the assumption that the Council will undertake marketing. The individual canners will still be undertaking their own sales. For that reason I cannot visualize how this measure could create any problem.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.