Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill, which makes provision for an increase in the non-taxable allowances and the pensions payable to Judges. Hon. members will recall that legislation was passed during 1966 in terms of which the payment to Judges, in addition to their remuneration, of a non-pensionable and non-taxable allowance at the rate of R1,500 per annum was authorized. It has become necessary to increase that amount and therefore provision is made in clause 1 of the Bill to increase the allowance from R1,500 to R2,700 per annum. As hon. members know, Judges are always in the public eye. Because of the status and integrity which they have to maintain by reason of their office, it is becoming more and more difficult for them to make ends meet. It is necessary to maintain the status of our judiciary at all times, and one of the best ways of doing so, is to ensure that the remuneration and allowances paid to Judges are sufficient. Hon. members should also remember that most of our Judges to-day are of an age when they still have children at school or university, and members undoubtedly know what a heavy burden this in itself is. In brief, the increasing financial burdens of Judges have had the result that virtually the same situation which existed immediately prior to the granting of the existing allowance, has once more arisen. That is the reason for the increase proposed in clause 1.

As regards the pensions of Judges, the drop from salary to pension is too big at present. Judges who are approaching the age of retirement, do so with a feeling of anxiety. They retire at an advanced age when it is not possible to look for another livelihood. Moreover, it is not in keeping with the status which they have had to maintain for many years to have to look for another livelihood subsequent to their retirement. As a matter of interest, I may mention that an old Free State Act the Judges’ Pension Ordinance, 1903, made provision for Judges to receive up to two-thirds of their annual remuneration in pension upon retirement, and I hear that in England and Canada the pensions of Judges at present amount to 75 per cent of their remuneration. Under present circumstances the increase proposed in clause 2 of the Bill ought to bring considerable relief.

Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for an increase of R500 per annum to those Judges who became entitled to the payment of a pension prior to 1st April, 1964. It is a known fact that they are considerably worse off than Judges who retired or retire subsequent to that date, and consequently relief in their case too is essential. As far as we have been able to ascertain, there still are 12 ex-Judges who fall into this category. Once we have passed this measure, I believe that we will have done justice to our Judges and ex-Judges, and I believe that this will meet with the approval of both sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, Judges’ salaries and emoluments have always been treated as agreed measures by this House in the past, and it is right that this should be so, because Judges should not be drawn into political wrangles at any time. It has been the principle in this country, and advisedly so, that Judges should as far as possible be financially independent, so that there is never at any time a suspicion that they may be tempted in any way. It is unnecessary for me to remind this House of the high prestige and standing which our Judges and courts enjoy throughout the world. Admittedly, we gave an increase in 1964 and also in 1966 to their financial benefit, but this had become necessary because of the continual rise in the cost of living, and especially, as the Minister has mentioned, some of the Judges to-day are young men who have children to educate and have possibly not yet had time to accumulate the wealth which one associated with the older Judge in the old times.

It is also, of course, desirable that our leading barristers should be prepared to take up their position on the Bench. We do not want to be denied of the best men for this position because of the financial losses which they so often incur by taking on these appointments. For these reasons we of the United Party approve of this Bill.

There is only one matter about which I am sorry, namely that the Minister had not dealt with widows. The widows’ pensions will remain the same. I understand that the hon. the Minister has had no request from the Judges themselves that the pension should be increased. But, of course, the widows of the Judges who have already passed on, probably do not feel the same about it as the wives of the Judges who are still alive and are able to make their representations.

How can the husband of a widow ask for an increase?

I do feel that we should have given more consideration to the position of widows. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember that in 1964 when we discussed similar measures in this House, we then too raised the question of widows of Judges who received no pension at all. That was because their husbands died before the pension scheme was introduced. But I do wish that the Minister, when he considers a matter of this nature again, will give some regard to the position of widows.

The fact of the matter is that I have received no representations in connection with this matter. I want to point out that the widows of Judges are not badly off. Their present pension is R900 per annum, plus an additional amount of R90 per annum for every year of service up to a maximum amount of R1,800 per annum. I feel sorry for the widows of Judges who died prior to 1956, as there was no widows’ pension fund at that time. I fear that they are in a completely different position, and I am sorry about that. The experience is, however, that the Select Committee on Pensions has always met their cases. Special legislation to deal with their cases cannot be passed.

I want to mention that with this Bill I am reacting to the very well-considered representations I received from all divisions. This Bill was checked by the Judges-President and by the Chief Justice, whereupon it was referred to the Cabinet. No representations were received in respect of the widows of Judges, and I therefore have to accept that they approve of this legislation as it stands.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed to Committee of the Whole House.

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

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

The problem; here, as I see it, arises from the phrase “business principles”. This phrase has many connotations, contains many different ideas and lends itself to many interpretations. I have moved this amendment for the purpose of obtaining more certainty in connection with the meaning of that phrase and for the purpose of emphasizing two important aspects of that concept. As you know, Sir, economics is a science. In the science of economics there are terms such as “labour”, “money”, “market”, “value”, “supply”, “demand”, “profit”, etc. These words have meanings for experts in economics and, of course, in any Act. Now, however, one comes to this concept of “business principles”. I have done my best to find out the exact meaning of that concept in the field of economics. I have consulted, inter alia, eight books on economics, one lecturer in economics, one commercial organization, and two encyclopaedias. I have been unable to find a definition of the concept “business principles ’ anywhere. This does not mean, however, that the concept “business principles” does not exist in economics. Here I am distinguishing between the comprehensive, wide concept “business principles”, and the more narrow terminology of economics, where there are certain items which have a clear definition. The problem now is that “business principles” is a concept which may include many things. It may possibly include a score of things. What we should aim at in this Bill is to state more clearly which of that score of different concepts we want to have included in “business principles”, also which of them we feel should be emphasized, and whether we want all of them to be of the same importance. I think the hon. the Minister realizes what the problem is. Therefore he has emphasized in this clause what he regards as important, namely the promotion of commerce, industry, agriculture and foreign trade. These are components of the concept with which I have no argument, and of which I approve. I am pleased that they have been inserted.

While I was doing research to find out what was included in the concept “business principles”, I came across an excellent book. This book is entitled “Die Taak van die Bedryfsleier” (“The Task of the Industrial Leader”) and the author is Professor H. J. J. Reynders. He is a professor in business economics at the University of Pretoria. In this book he explains that there are different kinds of business principles and that various interpretations can be attached to that concept. The point I want to make is that that is the reason why I want us to have certainty as regards the concept “business principles”. On page 7 of the book the author states (translation)—

Consequently the choosing of business principles is of great importance. Professor Reynders then poses the question—

In our case the undertaking is the Post Office—-

To make a profit is a sound business principle. I would say, however, that it would be wrong, as far as the Post Office is concerned, to include this concept and to say that the Post Office was there merely to make a profit. Professor Reynders continues—

He says that to treat one’s workers well can be a secondary objective. Because I should not like to see this matter as a secondary and an unimportant objective, I have moved this amendment for the very purpose of emphasizing this. In addition the Professor says—

I should not like any changes to come about as regards this one important matter to which I refer in the first part of my amendment. When it comes to the business principles from which an organization like the Post Office should make its choice, two main groups are mentioned by Professor Reynders. The first group is the socio-economic business principles, and the second is the rentability principle for the maximalization of the profit. My first amendment refers to this first large group of business principles applicable to the Post Office, and my second amendment to the second group.

Order! The hon. member is hardly dealing with the clause at all. He is giving a lecture on economics, whereas the Committee is dealing with a Bill.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir. In the few minutes which I still have at my disposal, I shall refer more specifically to the wording of this clause and to the reasons why I have moved my amendment. My main object was to show that we must have certainty as regards the type of business principles which are going to be applied here.

Order! Is the hon. member not making a speech which should really be made on the Posts and Telegraphs Vote?

Not in this case where we are introducing the term “business principles” into a Bill for the first time. I suggest, with respect, that if we had had those words in a Bill before and the Post Office had been run on those principles, then I would have been able to understand that this would possibly have been of more importance on the Vote, but where we are dealing with the definition of this word in a Bill for the first time, I think that it is time for us to have certainty as regards the meaning of that definition, especially in view of the fact that in future that may remove a great deal of uncertainty in this regard.

In paragraph (b) of his amendment the hon. member mentions how staff matters should be dealt with. Would this not be more appropriate under another clause which deals with staff matters?

It is quite likely that it can be inserted under another clause as well, but I should like to submit to you, Sir, that it would be better to insert it here in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has even introduced matters such as commerce, industry, commercial profits and profits on foreign trade so as to explain what he understands by “business principles”. I should like to bring this matter in under business principles. The Minister could just as well have brought in matters like commerce and industry in connection with special tariffs under a subsequent clause, but I think he has done the right thing to bring them in under clause 2. It is on the same basis that I should like to move these amendments of mine.

The hon. member does not convince me at all about this point. The hon. member may proceed, but I think he is off the point.

If that is the case, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if the business principles of the Post Office do not include the interests of the employees or that they should be treated well, then we must hear that from the Minister this afternoon. Professor Reynders maintains that these things may be included. I believe that it is important that we should include them, and I believe this for the following reasons. I believe the workers of the Post Office have not received that fair treatment to which they are entitled and that this Bill should guarantee such fair treatment.

Order! The hon. member should not turn his speech into one which should be made on a Vote. The hon. member is now speaking of the treatment they have received, and that has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am speaking of what I phrased as “the right of all employees to fair wages” in my amendment. Surely you will allow me to speak on the wording of my amendment.

What do you regard as fair?

There is a big difference between what the hon. the Minister of Transport regards as fair and what I regard as fair, but I add to that that the ordinary economist’s interpretation of the word, “fair” and mine would be the correct interpretation, [Time expired.]

I am not prepared to accept these amendments. The hon. member said his difficulty was what was understood by “business principles”, but these amendments of the hon. member do not at all relate to a definition of “business principles”. The hon. member also said that I defined “business principles” in the clause concerned, but that is not so. The clause reads “shall be administered on business principles, due regard being had to the promotion, by means of efficient …” This is a different matter. Apart from the fact that the undertaking is being placed on a business basis, regard must be had to other things as well. The Minister of Transport, with the question he put to the hon. member, namely what he understood by “fair”, invalidated his entire argument, because fair wages, without any definition, mean different things to different people. [Interjections.] “Proper service conditions” are mentioned. What does the hon. member understand by the word “proper”? It means different things to different people. What does the hon. member understand by “secure living standards”? These are concepts to which different people can give different interpretations, practically like this old type of United Party standpoint of “meaning all things to all men”.

“And at all times”.

It would serve absolutely no purpose to provide in the Act that the affairs of the Department have to be administered on business principles, regard being had to these undefined concepts. That would not make anybody any the wiser, particularly in view of the vague concepts implied in words like “fair”, “secure” and “proper”. They really have no meaning whatsoever. It is the policy of the Government to be fair to the workers of the State. It is also the policy of the Government to maintain secure living standards for the workers of the State. I do not think that the definitions in this amendment are matters which belong in legislation. Parliament will have the opportunity every year, and Opposition members and Government members will avail themselves of that opportunity, to discuss these matters on the Vote of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and in that way Parliament is able to ensure that the Government is doing its duty as far as Post Office workers are concerned. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he should really not make his wooing too obvious. One should not conduct one’s wooing too openly in public, because it may be that the girl does not like the wooing, and I think the Post Office officials do not like this open wooing. In the end the hon. member will achieve nothing with this piece of propaganda which he wants to make here and which he knows full well cannot be written into the legislation because it has no meaning whatsoever. His amendment will bear no fruit. I cannot accept it.

I just want to reply briefly to what the hon. the Minister said. He said paragraph (b) of my amendment had nothing to do with business principles. May I read to him the words of Prof. Reynders?

Order! The hon. member should stop quoting Prof. Reynders now. We are not concerned with him.

Do I now have to accept that the words of an eminent economist are acceptable or are the words of the Minister acceptable?

I have given my ruling. The hon. member is now discussing a matter of principle as set out by Prof. Reynders, and that has nothing to do with the clause.

On a point of order, Sir, the Bill uses the words “business principles”. I submit that the hon. member is trying to deal with matters directly related to the wording of the Bill, which will now be enacted and which will affect the economy of the whole of the Post Office and all its employees. I submit, with respect, that the hon. member is entitled to quote references in support of his contention that the use of the term “business principles” requires modification by an amendment.

On a point of order, Sir, may I say something? I just want to draw your attention to the fact that we are dealing here with the details of the Bill, one of which is the proposal in this clause that the affairs of the Post Office are to be administered on business principles. But to enable us to decide whether it is advisable to pass this clause, it is necessary to have clarity about the real meaning of the vague term “business principles”. What the hon. member is doing by quoting authorities is to look for clarity as regards the real meaning of this particular term. With respect, I think that falls within the scope of the functions of this Committee.

If the hon. member wanted a definition of “business principles” in the Bill, he should have moved such an amendment on clause 1. If we want to add miscellaneous points such as these, we may in the end have a Bill running into hundreds of pages. The hon. member may proceed, but he must keep himself within limits.

We do not want to define the concept “business principles”, because people know what it means. What we want to do is to emphasize those aspects which we regard as important ones. You see, Sir, “business principles” can, for example, mean that one has to invest all one’s profits in capital, or that one has to utilize all one’s profits without transferring any part of such profits to a reserve account. One group of businessmen will attach one interpretation to that concept and another group of businessmen will attach another interpretation to that concept. I should like to point out what we would like to emphasize in this Bill. The hon. the Minister said that the words “secure” and “proper” could mean different things. It often happens that one finds it difficult to attach an exact interpretation to a certain word in a Bill. In such a case it is left to the courts to do so and I am quite satisfied that in such a case the courts will be able to interpret those words as they generally are interpreted. As I have indicated, the term “business principles” can also mean more than one thing. It is much more than a case of, to use the hon. the Minister’s words, “all things to all men”.

The hon. the Minister says that it is their policy to be fair to the Post Office workers. That possibly is his intention but I want to put it stronger; I should like to see it in writing so that it may serve to place the Post Office workers in a stronger position and even to place the hon. the Minister too in a stronger position when in future he has to approach the Minister of the Interior and has to consult the Minister of Finance. This is not something which he ought to reject; he ought to accept it because it will place him in a stronger position.

What I have just said also applies as regards the second part of my amendment, i.e. the lowering of tariffs. For instance, a businessman may decide to utilize all his profits for erecting new buildings, buying new machinery, etc., or he may utilize all his profits for paying dividends to his shareholders or to persons who have given him money. I want us to ensure that the ordinary shareholder of the Post Office, the South African citizen, will also derive benefit from the profits, not only by way of good services, not only via good telecommunications, but also through part of the profits being utilized, whenever economically feasible, for lowering tariffs. Why cannot we, the ordinary shareholders in the large Post Office in South Africa, share in the profits? The hon. the Minister of Transport ought to have sympathy with me because he was the one who said that the nation would have to share in the profits of undertakings such as the gold mines. Let us then share in the profits of the Post Office by means of decreased tariffs.

Then there is another point in connection with the question of business principles—and you, Sir, may tell me whether or not I may raise it here—and that is the statement by the hon. the Minister that he did not believe that it was a business principle that the Post Office should bear the costs of the distribution of newspapers at a very low tariff and that he would like to see that that burden was not carried by the Post Office but by the Government …

Order! The hon. member is now dealing with a matter which has nothing to do with the Bill.

With respect, Sir, in his final speech during the Second Reading stage the hon. the Minister mentioned this fact. I think this is something which is important and it also falls under business principles. If one runs any undertaking on business principles, one does not render services free of charge; one does not render services at a loss, and the hon. the Minister mentioned an example here …

Order! It is no good trying to be clever as far as this point is concerned. The point the hon. member wants to raise is a detail which should really be dealt with on the Vote.

With respect, Sir, the hon. the Minister mentioned it in his second-reading speech as one of the important things he can do. Have I not the right to comment on it?

The Minister said that in his reply to the second-reading debate, and that debate has been concluded. We are dealing with the details of the clauses now.

The hon. the Minister did not say that in reply to what I had said. Not one of us on this side of the House raised that point. It is a point which the hon. the Minister raised in order to illustrate that there are in fact services which the Post Office provides …

Before raising the point, the hon. member asked me whether I would allow him to discuss it, and now that I am not allowing him to do so, he is dissatisfied.

On a point of order, Sir, you said that this was a matter of detail, but surely the time to raise matters of detail is when we are in Committee. It is no good saying that we must raise these matters on the Vote because on the Vote we can only deal with matters which are contained in this Bill when it becomes an Act, and therefore we want the details of the Act to be clear so that we can know what we can discuss when we get to the Vote.

The question of the postal tariffs paid by newspapers has nothing whatsoever to do with the details of this Bill as such; it has to do with the details of policy which can be discussed under the Minister’s Vote. That is my ruling. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, may I refer you in passing to clause 6, in which mention is made of services provided to other Departments which have to be offset by means of a payment for the loss suffered by the Post Office. Is this not a case too of a service which is provided to newspapers? After all, somebody has to pay for that, and not the Post Office. Unfortunately there is no subsequent clause which deals with this matter, and my contention is that it can be brought in under this clause, and I am not bringing it in mainly for the purpose of criticizing it. Personally I think the hon. the Minister has a good point when he says that in such a case, where we are going to run the Post Office on business principles, the burden should not be placed on the Post Office and that a case can in fact be made out— and possibly a strong case—that the Government as a whole should bear the loss.

Then I come to the other part of my amendment, about which I do not want to say a great deal, and that is the substitution of the word “income” for the word “earnings”,

Is that in the English version only?

Yes. I do not think the word “earnings” necessarily is completely wrong, but it may cause confusion. I think “income” is a more correct translation than the word “earnings”, especially where we are now thinking in terms of business principles. Companies, for example, usually speak of their “earnings”. If one consults the Stock Exchange Year Book, one sees that the “earnings” of a company are its net profits; its earnings are not its income. When a company speaks of “the price-earnings yield of a company” it refers to the ratio between its total net income —not its dividends—and the price or the value of its shares. We have to make a distinction between words such as “ontvangste” (receipts), “inkomste” (income) and “winste” which may be described as “profit” or “earnings”. [Time expired.]

I wish to refer to subsection (1) of clause 2 in which it is said that “the affairs of the Department shall be administered on business principles, due regard being had to the promotion, by means of efficient postal and telecommunication services, of commerce, industry and agriculture in all parts of the Republic”. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the word “public” has been left out of this clause deliberately or for any particular reason, because I believe that here too the public play a very big part, not only in commerce, industry and agriculture, but the public itself forms an integral part of commerce, industry and agriculture. In this clause, however, there is no indication that the public will be supplied with an efficient postal and telecommunication service run on business principles. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that it is necessary to include the word “public”, and whether he will indicate to this Committee whether it is his intention to supply to the public a service which could be regarded as of equal importance to the other three headings mentioned? Sir, I raise this question particularly in regard to development parallel with transport services. In the field of transport services we have rapid communication between the cities of the Republic to-day, but when it comes to postal delivery services, the position alters. Postal articles are conveyed by high-speed aircraft from one centre to another, but the actual delivery to the public, to industry, to commerce, and to agriculture lags in many instances far behind the time taken to convey the letters and so forth from one city to another. I think it is in the interests of the public that the hon. the Minister should give an assurance that it is in fact his intention to adopt an attitude similar to that which private enterprise would adopt in regard to services of this nature.

There is another aspect to which I wish to refer briefly and that concerns a public safety factor. We know that around our cities there are large townships which house non-Europeans, and in those townships telephone services are at a minimum. In a certain large city only 155 applications for telephones have been met, yet the population there is between 300,000 and 400,000 people. I believe this is something which falls within the ambit of this clause, and I would welcome the assurance from the Minister that he will give these matters his attention, because the number of applications exceed by more than two and a half times the limited number of telephones installed.

Mr. Chairman, now I really do not understand the hon. member for Berea. In my opinion it is not necessary to raise these matters when this Committee is dealing with legislation of this nature. As I clearly said in my second-reading speech, this legislation was introduced with a view to the interests of the public. I do not know why these matters should specifically be stated in this clause. The whole spirit of this measure is to improve the Post Office service to such an extent that these services can be provided. I stated that explicitly.

It does not mention the public anywhere.

Order!

I really do not think it is necessary to go any further into the point raised by the hon. member.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove. If the hon. member has difficulty with the words “business principles” he should rather have given a definition of what is understood by “business principles”. Then, as regards the case he is trying to make out, there would have been an argument which could have been examined. But this amendment contains no further definition of these words, nor does it explain what meaning should be attached to the words “business principles”. Unfortunately, even after the hon. member has re-stated his case, I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. member for Yeoville also said that there must surely be a concept of what is understood by the words “business principles”. I think this is an elementary concept, and it is a question of the interpretation given to the phrase, which is in turn a question of policy. The Minister who is in charge of the portfolio, attaches his interpretation to the phrase “business principles”, in the same way as hon. members have become acquainted over the years with the hon. the Minister of Transport’s policy and the fact that he places the emphasis on “business principles”. The hon. member for Orange Grove wrested what I said from its context to some extent, but possibly he did not intend doing so. I nevertheless want to state this clearly on this occasion so that there can be no misunderstandings, I said that in the case of the Post Office, as a business undertaking, the emphasis ought to fall on business principles as well and on running it on business principles. But obviously certain departures from those principles have developed in the structure of the Post Office in the course of years, ones which will have to be continued as they are because they are regarded to be in the financial interests of the country. I referred to specific services which we would have to continue at an unprofitable tariff, and I mentioned the distribution of daily papers and newspapers as a type of service which in my opinion ought not to be continued as an unprofitable service. I did not say this was a business principle; I said it ought to be the aim and the endeavour to run the Post Office undertaking on business principles.

From the nature of the case it is essential that the tariffs of the Post Office will be kept as low as possible. They have to be kept as low as is economically feasible. The tariffs of the Post Office will be discussed by Parliament every year during the discussion of the Vote concerned. In section 2 (2) a definition is given of what the total earnings of the Post Office may be. In other words, an attempt is made to place a ceiling on the profits which the Post Office may make. Here the Post Office is treated on a utility basis. In other words, this subsection imposes a clear ceiling on the profits of the Post Office by prohibiting that its total earnings may exceed the amount which is sufficient to allow the Post Office to function on the whole as a non-profitable undertaking for the State. Therefore the net profit may not exceed the total extension requirements of the Post Office. If the net profit were to exceed these requirements, the Post Office would be legally obliged to decrease its earnings from tariffs. I think this subsection defines the position quite adequately for ensuring that there will not be unnecessary increases in tariffs, and in any event not more than is necessary to run the Post Office on a non-profitable basis.

Mr. Chairman, before we dispose of this clause there is something more which I should like to say. I by no means want to doubt the hon. the Minister’s good intentions in connection with this clause and the application of business principles. I believe that he will try to reduce rates if excess profits are made. I also believe that he will do his best to do something for the ordinary Post Office worker. But we should always take into account that this and other legislation is not passed with only one Minister in mind. He will be succeeded by others and circumstances may change, and that is why it is so important that these two principles we are asking for should be set down in writing. I also want to make it clear that, with reference to the Minister’s explanation as to what he meant by rates on newspapers, etc., I am not in favour of a new burden being imposed on newspapers now. I am sympathetic towards his standpoint that the Post Office should not continue such an uneconomic service.

I was referring to the fact that it is a kind of service which cannot continue to be provided at that rate.

Yes, I fully realize that, and I accept what the hon. the Minister said. Before sitting down, I do want to express our profound disappointment at the fact that the Minister said he was unable to accept these two amendments. The one amendment would have been a guarantee to the Post Office worker, and the other would have been a guarantee to the public of South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister not want these powers? Does he not want to do these things? We wanted to strengthen his hand, we wanted to grant him these powers so that he could say to his colleagues: “Look, the Act specifically provides that I must do this and that for my workers and for the public of South Africa.” But unfortunately the Minister stands condemned here to-day for refusing to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I am afraid that we cannot allow the hon. the Minister’s reply to the last two speakers to pass without comment. The hon. member for Berea raised the point that we had here a fundamental principle laid down, a principle which would determine the whole approach of the Post Office and which, in terms of the Bill before us, confined it to commerce, industry and agriculture. He asked the Minister whether the Post Office was not also there to serve the public. In his reply the Minister brushed aside his comments contemptuously and arrogantly. He virtually implied that he was talking nonsense. But to my mind this is an important issue. As this clause is worded now the Post Office is by law compelled to give its attention to three sectors of South African life only. It is compelled by law to have due regard to the promotion of commerce, industry and agriculture. But what about the public who make a large contribution towards the income of the Post Office? These are the people who pay, either directly or through commerce and industry, because commerce and industry load their prices to include postal charges. Why should the public be excluded from consideration as one of the factors which must influence the Post Office in its planning and its approach to its services. I therefore want to move as an additional amendment: In line 23 after the word “agriculture” to add the words “and serve the public”. This will then ensure that in its planning and in its application of business principles the Post Office will have due regard to the interests of the public as well as those of commerce, industry and agriculture. I believe that the public are equally entitled to the same consideration to which any particular occupation group should be entitled. It should be basic to the whole approach of the Post Office that it is there to serve the people of South Africa first and that the specific interest groups such as commerce, industry and agriculture, are in fact important, but not over-ridingly important to the detriment of the people themselves.

In regard to the other amendments which the hon. the Minister has refused to accept I should also like to make a few remarks. He has firstly not replied to the question on the use of the term “earnings” as opposed to “income”. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate to save argument whether he will accept that aspect of the amendment. Here we have the same thing happening as happened before. If you take a dictionary and look up a word you find that it has a number of alternatives. We have had this with other measures as well. Because a word appears in a dictionary, it is acceptable as a translation technically. You might as well say that “ek staan op die hoek van die straat” can be translated by “I stand on the angle of the street” because both are translated by the word “hoek”. Here we have quite clearly in the Afrikaans version the words “inkomste van die departement”, “inkomste” meaning the “income”. But when it is translated into English, you have the word “earnings” which has a different meaning which is apparent to anybody who understands the languages. It is not a question of whether you can find an alternative meaning in a dictionary; it is a question of the accepted usage of a word in a language. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister refuses to accept a simple amendment which improves and has no detrimental effect whatever on the clause. Otherwise he must change the Afrikaans version of the clause. I feel that this is not a correct translation and if the Minister refuses to accept our amendment, he is simply being stubborn and simply not acting as a responsible Minister should act.

Finally in regard to the other part of the amendment rejected by the hon. the Minister, I should like to say that one of the basic principles of any businessman is to make a profit. All we are trying to do here is to ensure that there is a balance between making a profit and looking after the welfare of the employees in the service and the people served by it, so that there shall be no exploitation under the cloak of saying that the Post Office will be run on business principles—a cloak which provides that the first consideration is business principles and the welfare of the employees comes second. Here we are placing them on an equal footing with the business principles which are necessary. I regret the attitude of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I shall have to consider this amendment before deciding whether it can be put or not. It does not seem to make sense.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I can hardly believe my own ears. The hon. members on that side are in fact members of a party which has fought all along for the upholding of the Constitution of 1910 which was drafted by our good forefathers—such a thorough Act, as it was always called—and that they should now be the people to find fault with that legislation of 1910! Everything to which they object appears just like that in our Constitution which was passed at that time. Both the English word “earnings” and the Afrikaans word “inkomste” appear in the Constitution. What is the position now? Why does the hon. member for Durban (Point) not move that the words “business principles” also be deleted? What would “business principles” mean if his amendment in connection with the insertion of the word “public” were accepted? Then “business principles” would mean absolutely nothing. Then one would in fact be making this entire clause meaningless, because one would have to give special consideration to every case in relation to the entire public. After all, the intention of this particular clause is very clear. Firstly, it is that the Post Office should be run on business principles. But together with that one must have special regard to the promotion of commerce, industry and agriculture. It was clearly and intentionally put in this way in our Constitution as well. These three things must be taken into account, because we have to give special consideration to commerce, industry and agriculture. But if public services are also added, then one simply draws a line through “business principles” and then it means that one has to give the same consideration to the entire public. Then no particular consideration will be given to the development of commerce, industry and agriculture. I cannot possibly accept the amendment, because it simply renders the entire principle contained in this clause meaningless. I do not think the hon. member for Durban (Point) meant it in that way. He only wanted to help the hon. member and then he simply helped him out of the frying-pan into the fire. I do not think the hon. member for Durban (Point) will be prepared to stand by his own amendment once he has reconsidered this matter.

I cannot accept the amendment. The amendment has not been presented in such a form that it makes sense when read with the rest of the paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, assuming then that “totale inkomste” means “total earnings”, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us, in view of the fact that we have discussed postal tariffs, whether this would have any effect on certain matters which are irritating to the postal services, particularly as regards tele-communications. I am thinking of the rural areas. Recently the hon. the Minister mentioned that he was operating the farm telephone lines at a loss of over R2 million. Now, bearing in mind the telephone charges on those particular lines, I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that where an account comes to 12½ cents, it be increased to 13 cents.

Order! I think that matter should be raised under the Vote Posts and Telegraphs when it is discussed in Committee. It is not a matter to be dealt with under this clause.

First and second amendments proposed by Mr. E. G. Malan put and the Committee divided.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether the hon. gentlemen who have not yet chosen sides, are voting on this side of the House? [Interjections.]

Order! I asked that hon. members in favour of this amendment take their seats on my right, and those against it on my left; and hon. members have not done so.

Result of division:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendments accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

In regard to this clause I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could perhaps give us an idea now of what he expected the total for the year ended 31st March, 1968, to be. I know that the books have as yet not been audited fully, but the financial year ended five weeks ago and the Minister ought to have at least an idea of the money that will be available. That is my first question. Secondly, it is said that the difference between the R21 million and the other amount will be paid into the fund not later than 31st March, 1969. Is that not rather late? Is it not possible for the Minister to consider advancing this date a little, so that he may have the money at his disposal at an earlier date? This is money which was received before 31st March, 1968, and which will only be paid in as late as 31st March, 1969. I do not wish to move any amendment in that regard, but the Minister could perhaps state that, once the books have been audited by the Auditor-General, this can be done at an earlier date, perhaps not later than 31st December.

The hon. member will concede that at the moment I am not in a position to say what the actual profits will be. As regards the second matter the hon. member raised, I think that the idea here is to grant the maximum period of time. If this can be finalized at an earlier date, it will be done. The hon. member must bear in mind that, as it is printed in the clause, this must be done after the Minister and the Minister of Finance have reached an agreement. There are several calculations and comments that must be obtained from several departments, and all of this may take time. But the hon. member may rest assured that this will be done as soon as possible. The idea of the clause is simply to prevent our hands from being tied in such a way that this matter has to be dealt with precipitately.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

I move the following amendment—

This amendment deals with the account which the Minister must, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, present to Parliament if the Department is required to do so under a resolution, and which relates to a service provided either gratuitously or at an unremunerative tariff by the Post Office, where the amount of the loss incurred has to be made good out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This amendment is being proposed because in practice it is impossible to present this account precisely “at the end of the financial year but in fact as soon as practicable after” the end of the financial year.

I agree with the Minister that one cannot expect it to be possible for full statements of account in regard to services provided by one Department to another to be furnished immediately after the closing of the financial year. I am not very happy about the words “as soon as practicable”, but I hope we shall be able to obtain the assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will do his level best to make statements of this nature available to us while Parliament is still in session, i.e. during the same year. It ought not to be too difficult to make such statements available to us before the middle of June, i.e. when Parliament normally prorogues. I do not wish to propose any amendment in this regard, but I hope that by “as soon as practicable” the Minister means that it will be possible for Parliament still to obtain such statements in the course of the same year so that we may discuss these matters.

That is the position.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Subsection (4) makes provision for the designation of a member or an acting member to act as chairman of the board during the absence of the chairman. The position is that officers designated by the State President to serve on this board as temporary members, are not members of the board but merely perform, in a temporary capacity, the functions of members. They remain officers of the Post Office and remain subject to all the provisions of the Public Service Act, also when they substitute for members. Accordingly this amendment is essential, and the words “acting member” are omitted so as to put it beyond any doubt that a person who temporarily substitutes for a member is in fact not a member who can lay any claim to the privileges of a member.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

I submit to the Minister that this is a very important board, which will have very important functions. It becomes a board with great authority over a new autonomous section of our State administration. As such I believe that the names of the members of the board should be given the widest publicity possible. I know that it can be said that it is customary for the personnel of boards to be made available to the Press, to the Broadcasting Corporation and to the Department of Information, and these bodies can at their discretion, at their own whim or fancy, publish the names. But that is not a permanent way of disseminating the information. It is published in the newspapers, and a few days afterwards a member of the public may wish to refer to the particular notice and is unable to remember on which date it was published, and it is rather difficult under those circumstances to trace it. But in so far as the publication in the Government Gazette is concerned, that is of a permanent nature and it is widely read. This is a statutory appointment, and I believe that the people who regularly subscribe to the Government Gazette have ready access to the names so published. It goes further than this. I believe that any member of the public who wishes to ascertain the names of the people serving on this particular board can do so by going to any reference library, because there the Gazettes are available for public use and the quarterly indexes make it easy for a member of the public who wishes to ascertain certain information from the Gazette to do so. The publication of the names in the Gazette is a practice which has been adopted by other boards. I would refer the Minister to the State Tender Board, the Hospital Board, the Road Transportation Board, the Bantu Housing Board, the Hotel Board, the National Liquor Board, and I suggest that it is in the public interest that this particular clause should be embodied in the legislation and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment, because the Post Office Staff Board does not provide services to the public. In cases where a board concerns itself with domestic affairs, the names of its members are usually never published in the Gazette. When the members of the Public Service Commission are appointed, their names are not published either. Therefore I cannot see my way clear to accepting this amendment.

I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept the suggestion, because I would refer him to the fact that only last year similar representations to the Minister of Education received sympathetic consideration. I think he realized that there was merit in the suggestion that it was desirable for the public to know these things. No harm can be done and no great inconvenience is caused if in fact the Minister accepts this amendment. I could provide him with a whole string of other bodies, corporations, commissions and committees, where this practice has been adopted. I believe that the Minister would be well advised to consider this suggestion and perhaps in the Other Place to include a provision along the lines I have suggested.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, will certainly not be able to advance reasons why it is imperative for the names of these people to be disclosed to the public. When the hon. member says that these names should be published in the Gazette, does he think it is easy for a member of the public to trace those names in a library? That means that such a person has to go to the library and look up all those references before he can find out whether changes have been made in this board. Yes or no? That is a lengthy search. After all, it is much easier to approach the Postmaster-General or the chairman of the board directly and to ask who the members of the board are. I think that in this respect the hon. member is introducing a little red tape in the Act. In my opinion we should not do this. I am very grateful that the Minister did not accept it. If it were to be published, it could not serve any purpose and nobody would look at it. No member of the public needs that information, and if anybody wants that information, he could follow the course I have indicated.

The point raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside about members of the public not being interested is not correct. I know of several members of the public who are public representatives and who should be interested when a vitally important body such as this is formed. In fact, if the Government did its duty there would be more than 160 members of this House who should be interested in knowing the names of the members of this staff board. According to the hon. member, to get that information they will have to make 160 phone calls or write 160 letters, when it could have been done much more easily. The Post Office Staff Associations would like to know immediately who these members are. The 40,000 members of the Post Office staff themselves would like to know who the members of the board are. Surely many of them will have some good ideas to place before this board. It is by far the easiest thing to make the appointments publicly known. That will satisfy everyone, and everybody who wants to approach this board as everyone interested in the Post Office will have a right to do, will know whom they have to approach. After all, it is a question of public funds. We are asked here to approve the establishment of a very important board, a board which is supposed to bring a new deal for the Post Office, and yet we may not officially know in the Gazette who these people are. What is there to hide? What is wrong in telling the public who these people are? Surely the Minister must start off his new job on the right foot. I know that I can get information by another means; I can get it by putting questions in Parliament. I know that questions which I have put to Ministers in the past, have always been replied to in a very reasonable manner. I trust that this is not an indication that the hon. the Minister would refuse to reply to questions.

Why can you not obtain the information from the Postmaster-General?

Sir, I can get the information from the Postmaster-General. That hon. member can get it and other hon. members can get it, but why place such an unnecessary difficulty in their way? There might be 10,000 or 40,000 Post Office workers who would like to know. Must they make 10,000 or 40,000 telephone calls or write 10,000 or 40,000 letters? I am trying to make it as easy as possible. I am trying to make it possible for the Minister to prove that he has nothing to hide.

What is so secret?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) should not try to be dramatic now. There is no question of secrecy here. The hon. member for Orange Grove has been a member of this House for many years; we both arrived here in 1953. Has he ever asked the Minister of the Interior under the Vote “Interior” why the names of persons appointed to the Public Service Commission are not published in the Gazette? He has never done so. If this is supposed to be such an urgent matter, does the hon. member want to tell me that he, who is such an excellent prier into all these little things, would not have ferreted out this thing in the past? I cannot accept that. I know that hon. member’s art of prying too well for that. Mr. Chairman, I think we need not get hot under the collar in regard to this matter. I am simply not prepared to accept the amendment, for the same reasons for which our good forefathers, of whom hon. members opposite are speaking so highly, did not deem it fit either to publish in the Gazette the names of persons appointed to the Public Service Commission. There are no secret or sinister doings in this respect. These posts are so important that I readily accept that these names will be announced in just about every newspaper. As regards the Post Office staff who do not get newspapers, they will be able to read the names in their weekly Post Office circular. The rest of the public really has no interest in this matter. Members of the House of Assembly can very easily ascertain the names of these members, and I do not know why we should unnecessarily take up the time of this Committee by arguing about a matter of such minor importance.

Would you be prepared to mention that in the annual report of the Post Office?

Yes.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. L. F. Wood put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I move as an amendment—

This amendment is consequent upon the amendment in clause 7, which has just been agreed to. The expression “or acting member” is unnecessary here and is being omitted in order to obviate possible obscurity as to the question of whether an officer who temporarily substitutes for a member, is a member of the board.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

I move the amendment, standing in my name as follows—

The hon. the Minister in his second-reading speech made mention of the fact that the Opposition regarded this clause as one of the two most important clauses of the Bill, and, perhaps anticipating our amendment, of which we had given him an indication, he went to some pains to explain how the Post Office Staff Board was constituted in 1963. He said that the Staff Board at that time was not an independent body but that the Public Service Commission had delegated some of its powers and activities in respect of the Post Office staff to the Post Office. He also pointed out that there were certain safeguards in that these powers could only be exercised if the board were unanimous and that, failing unanimity, the matter would have to be referred back to the Public Service Commission. He also went to some pains to stress that the authority to make recommendations concerning salaries and conditions of service, was naturally not delegated to the board in terms of that Act. Now the Minister says that the present Post Office Staff Board, in terms of the present Bill, gets all the authority of the Public Service Commission with only one exception, the exception being to fix salaries and determine conditions of service. Sir, I for the life of me, cannot see really what important powers this Bill is conferring on the Post Office Staff Board. It seems to me that the independence, which is supposed to be given to the Post Office, is an independence with such strings attached to it that it cannot be regarded as real independence. The hon. the Minister goes out of his way to say that the Staff Board now becomes independent, but the recommendations of the Post Office Staff Board cannot be carried out unless they have the approval of the Minister of the Interior and, of course, the Public Service Commission, and then he says that this means in effect that the Cabinet has to approve. Sir, the Postmaster of Cape Town recently addressed a meeting in Cape Town of a group of businessmen who had complained about conditions in the Post Office, regarding the postal services. He said that one of the difficulties that existed in the postal services at present was that many members of the staff of the Post Office, duly qualified technicians and clerks, trained by the Post Office at a cost of several thousand rand each year, were lured away by outside offers of a few rand a month more than they received. He went on to say—

Surely if the words “the Minister of the Interior” and thus the Public Service Commission are to be retained in the provisions of this Bill, then there is going to be no improvement in the Post Office, neither of salary scales nor conditions of service. As I see it, the position would remain the same as it was before. I am quite satisfied that the Staff Associations in the Post Office could not possibly have agreed to the provisions of this clause whereby the Public Service Commission and the Minister of the Interior in effect have an overriding say in regard to any recommendations made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and by the Post Office itself. It seems to me that unless this clause is amended to exclude the Minister of the Interior then the whole objection of independence for the Post Office, which is the supposed aim and object of the Bill, will fall away.

I do not think it necessary to repeat once again all the arguments I advanced in my reply to the second-reading debate. I have already, in anticipation, pointed out to hon. members the differences between the Post Office Staff Board which was established in 1963 and the Post Office Staff Board which is now being established in terms of this Bill. I do not think that it is necessary for me to touch upon that matter again. The hon. member for Simonstown says that he cannot see any difference. In the case of the Post Office Staff Board established in 1963, one has to do with a body which is not independent at all, a body which derives its functions and its powers from the authority delegated to it by the Public Service Commission. When there is no unanimity on the Staff Board, the Staff Board cannot take any decisions, and in the past such matters had to be referred back to the Public Service Commission. However, the Staff Board which is now being established in terms of this Bill has been invested with all the powers the Public Service Commission has, except as regards salaries and conditions of service in respect of which a recommendation by the Public Service Commission is essential. The hon. member must remember that the Staff Board certainly does have the right to make recommendations in regard to salaries and conditions of service. If those salaries and conditions of service that are being recommended—even if the Staff Board were to have exclusive powers in this regard—are not approved by the Minister, those powers will be of no use to them.

I also pointed out that the Minister could not act in a dictatorial way as far as the Post Office was concerned; along with the other members of the Cabinet he has to take decisions in regard to these matters. The Cabinet shoulders the responsibility jointly. In addition I said that in my opinion we had already made a great deal of progress along the way, and that we had had to come a long way. I said that I thought the Post Office staff was grateful for the fact that so much progress had already been made along this way, and that in this stage I did not want to say anything about further steps which could still be taken. I also told hon. members that I had only been the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for two or three months and that I was keen to see this Bill, which I did not want to delay any longer, put to the test in practice to see how it would function. Furthermore. I gave hon. members the assurance that this was a matter I would consider. Should I find that it does not function properly in practice and that there are essential changes that should be effected. I give the Committee the assurance that they will be effected. But in my reply to the second-reading debate I also told the House that at this stage I would not allow anybody to push me in a certain direction. I said that if there proved to be causes of friction, I would be only too glad to see all those causes of friction removed immediately, i.e. after proper investigation and after proper consideration. I do not think that there is anything else for me to say in regard to this matter. It is not my intention to alter my view in regard to this matter, not because I do not wish to listen to the Opposition, but I did after all give thought to this matter and consider it very thoroughly before reaching this decision.

The hon. member says that he does not want to be pushed in regard to this matter. Is it not perhaps the case that he has already been pushed in regard to this matter by the Minister of the Interior, the Public Service Commission and his colleagues? I believe that at heart he is not satisfied with this clause as it is printed here. He might say that he is satisfied, but I shall not be able to accept that.

I have already said so. In my introductory speech I said that this was not the most suitable way, and I said so again in my reply. Why does the hon. member not accept it?

I am glad that the hon. the Minister draws my attention to the fact that he is not satisfied with this. But in that case I think that he has now had the opportunity to remedy this matter, because that does not depend on his short period of office as Minister. This Government and its predecessor have been aware of this problem for 10 years and have been working on it for 10 years. In 1963 the Government introduced legislation, and that legislation proved to be inadequate. It simply did not work, and in view of the experience gained since then it ought to have been clear that it could not work in this case either. Here the hon. the Minister has in effect his biggest problem: He wants to administer his Post Office on business principles, but how can he do so if he is not in a position to say what his staff should be paid and what the staff structure in the Post Office should be? What business can be administered efficiently if another business has to tell it, “Those are your salaries, and this is your staff structure”. That renders the position of such a business totally impossible. After all, experience has shown us what to do in this regard, not so? The hon. the Minister himself has gained experience of this in regard to the Railways. How would he have acted as Minister of Railways if he had been faced with this kind of pressure and hold being exercised on Railway people by the Public Service Commission? He would simply not have been able to administer the Railways on business principles.

Does the hon. member not have experience of the Railways as well? Why do you want us to deviate from this?

I do not really understand that observation of the hon. the Minister’s.

During the discussion of clause 2 you wanted us to deviate from the Railways’ position.

No, I am quite satisfied that business principles are being applied better on the Railways than they are going to be applied by the Post Office. The hon. the Minister referred to the independence of the Post Office, and I want to ask him how the Post Office can be independent with this particular clause forming part of the legislation. Have we not learnt our lesson in regard to the Railways? Have we not heard how Minister after Minister in charge of Sasol, Escom and Iscor pointed out to us that it was impossible for them to implement Public Service regulations and Public Service staff structures in their organizations, since those organizations had to be administered on business principles? The Post Office has to be run on business principles, and here we have an opportunity for something to be done, but it is not being done. All the hon. the Minister has to do, is to accept this amendment which we have proposed. The hon. the Minister said that he was not satisfied.

Do you know what is meant when the term “business principles” is referred to? It almost appears to me as though you do.

But, of course, I do know what is referred to when the term business principles is referred to. What I want now, is that the hon. the Minister should lay down in the legislation that one of the greatest business principles is that one must have control over one’s staff; otherwise one cannot administer a business, surely. The hon. the Minister has admitted that he is not satisfied with this step. The staff organizations are not satisfied either. One of them has already expressed its dissatisfaction, and there will still be further dissatisfaction. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor was not satisfied with the position. His predecessor put it much more strongly than that and said (Hansard, 8th February, 1968, column 188)—

But his predecessor put it much more strongly than the hon. the Minister did here this afternoon. I should have liked to have seen that very same firm attitude in the hon. the Minister in this regard. Amongst his own members in this House there is no satisfaction in regard to this manner. The other day the hon. member for Harrismith had a “painful” experience in this House. He said to me—

Then the hon. member suggested that there should be a trial period. Why does he not have the courage to rise to-day and to say that he agrees with this amendment? We are going to keep an eye on the hon. member to see on which side he is going to vote, i.e. when there is a division on this clause. Is he going to stick to his guns? Is he going to have the courage of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor and say that it has to be done as we want it to be done, or is he going to do as the hon. the Minister has just done and say: All the same, I shall do my best. The hon. member for Harrismith also advanced a good reason why it is necessary for the Post Office to have its own structure. He said—

What is most important of all, is that if we cannot pay the right, necessary salaries, we cannot solve the staff problem. If we cannot solve the staff problem, we cannot provide these services to the country. If we cannot provide these services, we can talk as much as we please, but we shall not be able to administer the Post Office on the basis of business principles, as we should like to have done. I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment of my colleague’s.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the hon. member for Harrismith, who made such an eloquent appeal during his speech to the hon. the Minister to accept precisely what we have now moved by way of an amendment. I know the hon. member for Harrismith as a very reasonable person, one who is able to see both sides of a case, and this is surely a most wonderful opportunity for the hon. member to be broad-minded and to give support to the Opposition who have now moved the very amendment which the hon. member for Harrismith had in mind. Therefore I confidently expect that the hon. member will vote with the Opposition on this matter. I think the argument he submitted during his second-reading speech is even better than those of the hon. member for Orange Grove or myself. He referred to the vital necessity of having skilled staff in the Post Office, in particular skilled technicians. I fully subscribe to those arguments. I believe one of the reasons why there is dissatisfaction with the service rendered to the public, is a shortage of staff because the salaries are unattractive compared, for example, to those paid by private enterprise, and even those paid by the Railways. Moreover, the conditions of service in the Post Office, being governed as they are by a very old Act, are not able to compete with those obtaining in private enterprise. Therefore I confidently expect some support this afternoon from the hon. member for Harrismith.

I wish to make a final appeal to the Minister. I can see that he has a difficulty, in that he regards this legislation as nothing more than a transition stage. He has himself said that there are likely to be amendments, if not next year then the year after, and it is also possible, as I suggested, that he might have to come with a new Bill in a few years’ time. It surely is unwise then to talk of independence if the most vital aspect of independence for the Post Office is being withheld, namely the determination of salary scales, the creation of posts, and the fixing of conditions of service. I realize his colleagues in the Cabinet must be exercising pressure on him, particularly at this stage when there is such a shortage of staff in South Africa, not to go ahead with full independence. I must confess I wish they would also go exercise the same restraint when it comes to independence in other spheres! It seems that in this instance his colleagues have exercised sufficient pressure on him for him to permit these strings to be attached to what he calls independence for the Post Office. I make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Chairman, without taking up the time of this hon. House unnecessarily, I must respond to the statement made by the hon. members opposite. I want to say to them that I firmly adhere to the attitude which I clearly adopted here, namely that there must be a probationary period, a period in which this measure is applied. Hon. members opposite therefore need not ask me to cross over to their side if they should call for a division on this clause. My attitude in regard to this matter is in complete agreement with that of the hon. the Minister. The Minister has already said that he will not accept the amendment. The Opposition will surely not ask him to vote with them if a division takes place. I stand by my statement that after a probationary period the matter can once more receive attention. The extent of this period is not even being determined. It may be five years, it may even be longer. After that period this hon. House can decide whether this clause should be amended or not, in the way proposed by me and by other hon. members during the second-reading debate.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Judging by the speech to which I have just listened, I gain the impression that this matter is now being raised to the level of a question of principle. If it is a question of principle it may, of course, not be discussed here, and then the proposed amendment is also out of order.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the principle that the Post Office be run on business lines has already been accepted, and I accept that, but it seems to me as if …

I am referring to the principle of the independence of the Post Office staff in relation to the rest of the Public Service staff. The hon. member for Simonstown said it was a principle, according to his amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, this amendment naturally seeks to lessen, even remove, the control which the Public Service Commission will still have over the Post Office, in the same way as there was similar legislation in 1963. I just want to say this in respect of what the hon. member for Harrismith said. He is now hiding behind the fact that he said that there should be a probationary period. But according to Hansard he made a much stronger statement here. He did speak of a probationary period, but now he slips back even further and tells us how long that period will be. He said that it might be five years or longer. I thought that if there had to be a probationary period, it might perhaps be six months or even a year, but now it is suggested, and I hope that this will be brought to the notice of the Post Office staff, that they will possibly have to wait five years and even longer. I must say that the hon. member for Harrismith has disappointed all of us in this regard. Before I resume my seat, just this. I hope the people in our country will take note of the voting on this amendment here to-day. I hope they will notice that the hon. members in this House who have just voted against reasonable remuneration for the Post Office employees and against lower rates are now also voting against true independence for the Post Office.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 18:

I move the following amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District):

My reason for suggesting that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to this amendment is that a similar position applies in the South African Railways. Here we have a Railway and Harbour Account. We do not have an account in the name of the General Manager of the South African Railways and Harbours. It is a small matter. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept the suggestion. I believe that it is more practicable and more desirable to maintain an impersonal rather than a personal approach in the establishment of a bank account of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, I am of course not prepared to accept the amendment. We are indeed faced with a very strange Opposition. On those matters which we regulate in the same way as in the Railways, they do not want to agree with us; but when our procedure differs from that of the Railways, then they say: “Oh no, now you must do as the Railways do.” The name “Postmaster-General’s Account” has been in use ever since Union in 1910.

It was introduced by the British.

That makes no difference. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove is quite right; it is a British designation. Our Post Office Act is based on the British Act. But I would prefer to continue using the name “Postmaster-General’s Account” instead of the name proposed by the amendment, i.e. “Post Office Account”, and for the following reason. It appears to me as though the terms “Post Office Account” and “Post Office Fund” may be confusing. Since a Post Office Fund is now being established, I think it is more distinctive to speak of a “Postmaster-General’s Account”, so that there is no confusion between the “Post Office Fund” and the “Postmaster-General’s Account”. Therefore I would prefer to retain the old British system. There are also certain good things which the British gave this country; we admit it. I do not know if hon. members opposite are ashamed of the good things which the British gave us. I consequently prefer the name “Postmaster-General’s Account”, and unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side are not quite satisfied with the wording of this clause. It reads as follows:

To us this does not appear to be very good English because we do not know what the “classes of subjects” are. We would suggest that the hon. Deputy Minister change the wording so that it would read:

The Afrikaans text should then be amended accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was kind enough to tell me in advance that he had doubts about the wording of this clause. We then examined the clause and I must admit that certain improvements could possibly be made in respect of the wording. However, the position is that the wording as it stands agrees substantially with section 84 of the Constitution. At this stage it is therefore my advice that since it is in agreement with section 84 of the Constitution, it would not be desirable to change the wording now, and that we should rather leave it as it is. However, I want to agree with the hon. member that a measure of improvement could perhaps be brought about.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Deputy Minister was good enough to draw my attention to section 84 of the Constitution, but I do not think that it is applicable. Even if it is applicable, the clause is still worded in bad English. Section 84 of the Constitution Act states:

The various categories are then mentioned. That makes sense, because mention is made of the “classes of subjects” and these “classes” are then set out. Paragraph (m) of section 84 (1) reads as follows:

This is therefore what we are doing. In other words, it is one of the subjects with which we are now dealing, in that we are giving the provinces the right to make ordinances in regard to trades and occupations. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that that is the way in which it must be read. If he wants to adhere to the wording of the introduction to paragraph (1) before dealing with the subheads of paragraph (1), then the clause should have read as follows:

I want to leave the matter there and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will give consideration to the matter and change the clause in either one of these ways when he has the opportunity in the Other Place. As it is printed it is not English.

Yes, I shall do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

To add the following subsection at the end of the proposed section 36:

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, as regards this clause, I just want to say that I regard it as the most important clause in this Bill. It meets a need …

Order! The hon. member is making a second-reading speech now. He should confine himself to the clause itself and not tell us what the needs are.

I just want to point out that the provision being made by this clause to increase the required amount to 82½ per cent, will most certainly make a very great contribution. I want to express my sincere gratitude towards the Minister for the fact that this provision has been made. As regards the 90 per cent loans which it will now be possible to grant, I want to say that these loans are going to be of very great value to the general public. I should therefore like to express my approval of the provision contained in this clause.

This clause deals with the new proposal to grant 90 per cent bonds up to an amount of R20,000 on dwelling-houses, subject to a levy. This levy is to be determined by the building societies, with the approval of the Registrar. When we dealt with this matter in the second reading, I said that this was in effect happening already through the private sector, in that the private sector were providing guarantees to the building societies, or depositing cash with the building societies as a guarantee to enable them to grant 90 per cent bonds, and that the amount of interest that was being charged for this privilege was very high indeed. Now, what I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, as the result of his discussions with the building societies, is what the proposals of the building societies in general are in relation to this aspect of the Bill. The idea, of course, is that they will have to charge a higher rate because in effect it will be a sort of general insurance; the one will be guaranteeing the other, so that if there is a deficit under one bond it will be made good as the result of the levy pool having been established. Can the Minister tell us what the rate of interest is likely to be on an average in regard to these 90 per cent bonds, which will be specially allowed under this levy?

Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member a conclusive reply at this stage. What I can tell him, though, is that the basis on which these levies will be calculated is at present still being considered by the Registrar and the Association of Building Societies. Up till now no decision has been taken in this regard, but it would appear as though it will be more or less the same as the premium charged by an insurance company to guarantee such an amount. At the moment I am not in a position to say to what extent and in what way it will effect the aggregate percentage which will then be payable. I may just add that I quite appreciate that these levies may eventually be reduced if this scheme is a success, as I think it will be, because, generally, building societies are conservative. Even a 90 per cent loan is granted not simply because adequate security may be given, but because it is safe to grant the loan in view of the fact that the debtor is a responsible person. I think it may possibly be found in the future that the amount which will accumulate through these levies will grow to such an extent that the levies charged may perhaps be reduced gradually. But unfortunately I cannot at this stage supply the information the hon. member has asked for.

Clause put and agreed to.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

The amendment requests that the name of every person appointed as a member of the council and the name of the chairman of the council shall be published in the Gazette. The S.A. Bureau of Standards is a very important body in the life of our country. It is of interest to people associated with commerce, industry and agriculture, and it is a body which merits and receives the financial support of the State. I notice on the Estimates that an amount of R2.3 million has been set aside for the functioning of this body. As far as its income is concerned, it was more than R4 million in the case of the previous year’s trading. I suggest that such a body, with such an important council, should have the names of the members of the council made as public as possible. I believe the most satisfactory way of doing this is by publication in the Government Gazette. It is a publication which is read widely by people who subscribe to it and who are interested particularly in commerce and industry. I believe, too, that it assures the public of easy access to these names. I do not share the opinion of some people that these names are not of great interest and that the public as a whole is not prepared to find out who is serving on such an important body. Here again we have the situation where the personnel of many commissions, boards and corporations are gazetted. It is a practice which in many instances has gone on for quite a number of years. I believe it is desirable to make provision in this Bill for the same procedure to apply. It is not without precedent. I have referred to the fact that the names of the personnel of committees, boards, commissions, etc., have been published by custom in the Gazette, but we also find that it is provided for in legislation. We find the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, 1964, the National Education Policy Act, 1967, and the War Graves Act of 1968 all making provision for the names of the bodies concerned to be published in the Government Gazette, and I ask the Deputy Minister in the interest of the public to accept this amendment so that this procedure can be followed also in the case of the Bureau of Standards.

This is a short Bill, but it deals with the appointment of the council. As it is so very important I think the least one can ask is that the names of the members should be published in the Gazette whenever there is any change. It is a very important body. I know the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was reluctant to publish the names of his board when we discussed it this afternoon, but I know that the Minister of Education is always prepared to publish the names of the Education Advisory Council or of any other board. He has been very co-operative and has assisted us at various times. I should Like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. I think it is reasonable that the public and especially commerce and industry, should know who these people are.

I do not want hon. members to think that I am quite unsympathetic towards this amendment, but unfortunately I cannot see my way clear to acceding to it, and I want to motivate this briefly.

In the first place it is doubtful to what extent it is actually in the general public interest if something has of necessity to be published in the Government Gazette. Hon. members will agree that it is really only the people who are interested in matters of this kind who get hold of and scrutinize the Government Gazette. It is possible that by far the greatest percentage of our population have never in their lives seen a Government Gazette. The daily newspapers are what the public usually take notice of, and it is, in these newspapers that, not inevitably but usually, announcements appear when boards are appointed, and it is here that the names of the members of the boards also appear. That applies to the general public. If there are perhaps bodies, companies or industries, which are interested in boards, then hon. members will agree with me that it is very easy for them to telephone the Department in question and find out who the members of the board are. It is probably easier for them to do that than to rummage through the Government Gazette, where the advertisements appear. That is why it is also my opinion that this will entail unnecessary costs and administrative work. A few years ago an attempt was made to keep all unnecessary advertisements and documents out of the Government Gazette, and from that date it did not publish unnecessary advertisements. Now the hon. member is asking that we should announce the names of the members of the board of the Bureau of Standards in the Government Gazette. He will of course want it not only when the board as a whole is appointed, but also on every occasion when a change is made. That will also have to be announced, otherwise it would serve no purpose. I doubt whether it holds any advantage for the Republic or for anybody interested in that matter and I am afraid that although we will have to bear the costs of the administrative work and will cause the Government Gazette to become more bulky, we will in fact derive no particular benefit from it. If the hon. member wants to know who the members are, he will still get in touch with Pretoria and ask for the names of the members of the Board. If we were to accede to this request, surely it is obvious that we would have to do the same thing in respect of numerous other boards. The hon. member is quite right when he says that it is not a big thing he is asking; it is a minor matter, but the accumulated result will have a great effect. If we think of the other boards such as the C.S.I.R.. the Fuel Research Institute, the Electricity Supervisory Board, Escom, the National Development Corporation, the Natural Resources Development Board, the Shipping Board, Iscor, Foskor, Sasol and many more, which will have to be advertised in the Government Gazette, it becomes a major undertaking. I really do not think it is worth all the additional work and expense.

I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister feels like that about the matter. I realize that there is a certain amount of administrative work involved, but I am sorry that he should raise the question of costs because I feel that is rather trivial. I have before me a Government Gazette in which the advertisement rates are quoted to people who advertise in it. I take it that the State would receive more favourable consideration than a member of the public when it comes to advertising in this publication. I find that one insertion of anything from one to 100 words costs the colossal amount of R3. I believe most seriously that these appointments should be published in the interests of the public, and that publication in the Gazette is the only practical and satisfactory way to do it. I cannot agree with the Deputy Minister that if all the bodies he named were to have the list of their members or their directors, etc., published in the Gazette, it would involve the State in a great financial outlay. I know that the Government Gazette is not a publication which shows a great profit, and in fact I know that there is a loss, but in relation to the services it renders to the public as a whole, and in the interests of the public, I do not believe that this matter should be decided on the basis of cost.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has given thought to the new development that is taking place in South Africa? We are dealing now with Economic Affairs. The Bureau of Standards has now become very much more important because we in South Africa are considering the question of going over to the metric system of weights and measurements. The most important body concerned with that change will be the Bureau of Standards. There is a great deal of public interest in the appointment of members and the public requires members on the board who can handle this change. I should think that the Bureau at present uses the metric system of weights and measures quite a good deal. The whole public will be interested in this matter. I think the period allowed for the change-over is approximately ten years. Engineers and industrialists generally are particularly interested in this, and the major part will be played by the Bureau of Standards.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has lost sight of one fact and that is the fact that the local Press very often gets its news from the Government Gazette. We are told that when a board is appointed, this information can be given to the Press by the Department of Information. That may be so, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us that this is the practice throughout the Government service, then perhaps there will be no need to ask for publication of the names in the Gazette. I believe it is in the interests of the country that the public should know who are the top men in specific fields who have been appointed to certain posts within the Government service. I think it is in the interests of the development of the country, and I also believe very sincerely that it is only right that the people who are appointed to these boards should have the right to ask that the public should know them, because they are all important people. You do not appoint people of no consequence to boards of this nature. They are all top people in their own professions and occupations. I believe it is right that the public should know them, and I believe that they are entitled to have their names made known to the public. Publication in the Gazette will simply mean that the ordinary local daily newspapers will pick up the information. It will always be available to them, and in that way it will filter through into the local Press. I have no doubt that if the names of the new members of this board appeared in the Gazette, they would immediately be picked up by the Press and given wide publicity.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

This is the second time in three years that the Government has forced upon the mutual funds an investment in approved securities. In an amendment to the Act in 1966 the Government forced the mutual funds to invest 10 per cent of their available funds in approved securities, of which 5 per cent or half had to go into Government securities, and it is now sought in terms of clause 5 to change this 10 per cent to 15 per cent and the 5 per cent to 7½ per cent. When this matter first came before the House in 1966 we objected. It was mentioned this year by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech that he proposed to increase the 10 per cent to 15 per cent and we objected again. In the second-reading debate on this Bill we had a third opportunity of objecting, and to-day we have the fourth but not quite the last opportunity of objecting again.

When the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced this provision into the Bill originally, he rested his case on the fact that insurance companies and pension funds were already making a contribution to Government securities or approved securities and therefore he could see no reason why mutual funds should not do the same. Sir, there is a vital difference between insurance companies and pension funds on the one hand and mutual funds or unit trusts, or whatever you care to call them, on the other hand. The person who invests with an insurance company or with a pension fund by paying premiums to the insurance company or contributions to the pension fund, does so with one specific objective in mind and that is to protect himself against some future contingency. It is the antitheses to gambling. He is playing for safety. The whole purpose of his investment with an insurance company or a pension fund is to make a conservative, safe investment. Therefore it is perhaps quite right, when you remember the objective behind the investment, that the Government should say to insurance companies and pension funds, “The objective of the investment with you is to save or to protect the investor against some future commitment or contingency and therefore we are going to protect the contributor to the insurance company or the pension fund by seeing to it that a proportion of the funds is invested in Government stocks”. But, as we have said before, the investor in a mutual fund or a unit trust is not investing for security any more than any investor in the stock market invests for security. The person who wants to invest in the stock market for security only, buys either Government stocks or perhaps preferent shares. If he wants to invest for growth or for large dividends—and I am not suggesting that every person who buys shares on the stock exchange is a gambler because this would be far from the truth—he knows that there is a modicum of hazard, and he takes that risk advisedly because in his opinion the returns that he will get for this modicum of risk are warranted and worthwhile. This is the purpose of the Stock Exchange in regard to quoted shares, apart from such things as Government stocks, municipal stocks and preferent shares. The formation of the unit trusts was simply a means of enabling people to invest jointly and to be able automatically to have first-class advice as to where they should invest their funds. We have taken the line that they are no more and no less than buyers of ordinary shares on a communal basis and that therefore they should not be penalized as against the ordinary investor. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in his reply to the second-reading debate, disagreed with that point of view. He said that there was a difference between a person who bought units in a unit trust and the ordinary investor because Parliament had provided the machinery to enable him to do so. Sir, I do not think that that argument rests on very firm ground, because if we are going to penalize everybody who does something by virtue of the fact that the Government has provided the necessary machinery to enable that thing to be done, then the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to wander much further afield than he does in this particular case, because for example the banks are governed by statute too. Is he going to ask depositors to make a direct contribution to the fiscus? It is true that the banks as profit-earning organizations make a contribution which affects them but not their depositors. The hon. the Deputy Minister would have to wander very far afield if he wants to establish the principle that any organization established by Parliament for the benefit of a person must pay a contribution to the State. Sir, we have not changed our minds on this issue. We still believe that this is wrong in principle and we will vote against this clause.

I am amazed when I listen to the arguments of the hon. member for Parktown. I cannot see exactly where he draws the dividing line and why the unit trusts should not be compelled to invest in the Government. The unit trusts are to-day one of the well-known financial institutions of the country. The hon. member mentioned the banks. The banks are financial institutions which fulfil certain functions and which, for certain specific reasons, are controlled by legislation. The first reason is to protect the public and to keep financial institutions in the country on a sound basis. Secondly, one has insurance firms. The insurance firms perform a certain function in the country in the interests of the people who want to save. The same applies to the pension funds. Those functions are also controlled by legislation. The unit trust schemes have now appeared on the scene. During the last few years they have mobilized a tremendous quantity of money. Millions of rands are being mobilized by them, and members of the public have resorted to them as a field of investment. For what reason? The basic reason is the following: The investor who is now coming into the spotlight in South Africa is the basic salary or wage earner. He cannot invest in the share market or in the property market because the units are too large for him. What do the unit trust schemes offer? The unit trust schemes offer the investor a field of investment consisting of small units, much smaller units than elsewhere, and they offer the investor the prospect of being able to invest his money without being subject to the pressure of inflation which we have had in the past. That is the reason why the investor invests his money there, and that is why the unit trust schemes are playing such an important role. The hon. member for Parktown stated that investors in pension schemes and insurance schemes did so in order to protect themselves against whatever might happen in the future. Surely people who invest in unit trust schemes do so for the same reason. They invest in those schemes in order to ensure their future, or to accumulate a pension for themselves for their old age. It is precisely the same story. The development of these unit trust schemes has been tremendous, and they have become tremendously large. The investor in a unit trust scheme is afforded protection by legislation. Surely the only purpose of the legislation we passed was to afford the investor protection. That is why I cannot see why the unit trust scheme should fulfil any other function than that of a financial institution, in the same way as any one of the others. The hon. member for Parktown stated that the unit trust scheme afforded investors an opportunity of making joint investments. But it goes much further than that. He receives definite dividends, he has this advantage that his investment will increase as with the passage of time, and he will be able to retire on it. To tell the truth, some investors believe that through making investments in unit trust schemes they can ensure a better pension scheme for themselves than by investing their money with other bodies, such as insurance companies and other schemes for example. I am not saying that this is the case, and I do not want to confirm it. This unit trust scheme is in actual fact a financial institution which is competing today with building societies, insurance companies, and also, to all intents and purposes, with banks. They are all fighting for their existence. That is why I am convinced that the hon. the Minister of Finance was quite right in his Budget Speech. This increase is perhaps an insufficient one. What does it comprise? It comprises only this matter. Certain of the assets of the unit trust schemes must now be invested in approved Government securities so that the assets may be safeguarded to a greater extent, and the Government is therefore ensuring that the investor is afforded protection.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pietersburg has put the case for the hon. the Deputy Minister very well. He has put the case in a nutshell. Having heard the case during the second-reading debate and having heard the hon. member for Pietersburg now, I am going to vote against this clause. I have quite made up my mind about that.

Why does a man invest his money in a mutual trust? He invests it in a mutual trust not only for the spread-over; that is but one reason. The other reason is because he can get an investment in equities, in shares in companies, and not in Government loans. That is why he is investing in mutual trusts. He does not want to invest in Government loans. They do not want to invest in war loans in Britain. They are buying equities. There was never such a boom in the British market. Their currency is devalued and people are still buying equities. They fear another devaluation. The same thing is happening in America. Investors do not want to invest in Government loans because they will get the same amount back. Our currency is depreciating at the rate of 2½ per cent per annum.

It is more than that; it is 3 per cent.

Farmers know that. A farmer knows that if he bought a farm ten years ago it is worth very much more to-day. It is similar to investing in equities. The ordinary man cannot buy farms, he cannot buy blocks of flats, so he invests in mutual trusts.

The comparison has been made with insurance companies, but it is not a good comparison. The right comparison is with a finance holding company of which there are very many in South Africa. That is a financial company that holds shares in many other companies. I am going to quote one as an example from a very reliable book. They give so much information about this financial investment company that they take three pages to give all the details. It is a fair deal and it is similar to listening to reading what a mutual trust is. This company that I am referring to has a very big capital, by the way, and it is a very strong company. I am not mentioning the name because I do not think we should bandy the names of companies or individuals across the floor of the House. I do not think it is desirable in debate. But if any hon. member is interested I can give him the name of the company personally.

What is the page number?

It is page 17. I have checked this afternoon and the position is this company has invested its funds, and their funds total almost R24 million, in 28 groups of companies, classifications of companies. It is the usual thing: Mining, coal, minerals, industries, and so on. There are 28 of them, and the number of companies in that 28 is almost 150. So they have a spread over 150 companies, all South African. They are good companies, well selected. Practically all of them are listed on the stock exchange in Johannesburg. This company is not being told by the Government, “You must invest 15 per cent of your money in Government loans.”

Why not?

For the simple reason that they are looking after their shareholders. Why should a mutual trust be forced to invest 15 per cent in Government stocks of which 7½ per cent with the Central Government, when no other investment company in the country is asked to do it? It is grossly unfair. Why should you say to a man, after he has invested his money, “You have invested your money in South African industry or mining or whatever it is, and you have not invested your money in Government stocks, but we are going to force you to do it.” We opposed this sort of measure when it was 10 per cent, and we shall oppose it a fortiori at 15 per cent. It is quite unjustified; there is no justification for it.

Let me give another example. It is not only this excellent investment company that has this spread-over but the Government itself. The Government itself is a financial investment company. The Government through the Industrial Development Corporation has quoted National Selections, it has quoted Industrial Selections. And what are National Selections and Industrial Selections? They are finance holding companies. I can give them the whole story if they want it; I find it a fascinating story. The Government of South Africa is in the private sector running a finance holding company.

It is a form of state capitalism.

Of course it is. Yet here we are singling out the mutual investment trusts and leaving the big finance holding companies without any compulsion imposed upon them.

There is not the slightest justification for this taxation. I do not know from whose brain it emanated in the beginning, but there is certainly no justification for it. If hon. members think it can be justified then they should explain to us what is the difference between a mutual trust and a finance holding company. What is the difference? I see no difference whatsoever and therefore I am hoping not only that the hon. the Minister will withdraw this clause but that he will go back to the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is a very reasonable man, and explain to him that we do not think that even the 10 per cent is justified.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Opposition has amazed me to-day by protesting so vehemently against this clause of the Bill. I can recall only too well how they attacked the national development company in this House because it had supposedly taken the initiative in establishing such a growth fund. It was the attitude of this side of the House that that fund could in fact play an important role in the mobilization of the savings funds of the country, and that the establishment thereof was in the interests of our entire attempt to establish a proper and orderly market which could be utilized for the development of our country’s industries and trade. After they had adopted that attitude, the Opposition now wants to come forward here as the so-called protectors of the growth funds. Our attitude on this side remains the same. We maintain that these growth funds are important and that they have in fact made amazing progress since their introduction. They are playing an important role, and will continue to do so in the future, in the mobilization of our money.

Reference was made here to the 1966 amendments, and the fact that we want to effect a change. When a new financial movement comes into operation, and when it makes as much progress as the growth funds have made, then it is quite natural that there should from time to time be amendments to the Act in question. That is quite normal. I think the State has acted wisely by not making the percentage so high at the beginning. But as these funds grow and become stronger the necessary adjustments are being made so that they can adapt to the times and the stage of development they have reached. That is precisely what is being done here now.

There is also another factor. The question may well be asked whether the growth funds have not perhaps developed too rapidly, whether they have not gripped the imagination to too great an extent and whether there has not consequently been a somewhat unsound development, i.e. a too rapid growth rate. The yield of those growth funds is abnormally low, and since share prices are apparently unsound now and disproportionately high any protection afforded the trust growth funds, such as is now being proposed by the hon. Minister, can only in the long run be in the interest of the growth funds themselves.

There are other arguments as well. Many financial institutions, such as banks, for example, must make a contribution to these Government securities. Why are they not all making a more or less equal contribution? Why should some bodies be over-burdened with taxes? If one takes into consideration the great strength of these growth funds, their rapid growth, then it is only fair that they should also invest a reasonable percentage of their funds as indicated in this measure. There is nothing wrong with it and it is essential. It will result in a more even distribution of the burden.

There is also a third point. It is a delicate task for any Government to maintain a balance between different institutions in order to attract, more or less evenly according to certain standards, the savings of the nation. It must take this into consideration continually, because each one has some or other right to exist according to some or other standard which may be laid down. I maintain that this measure will make an important contribution towards maintaining this delicate balance in respect of the attraction of the savings of the country by the various institutions. It will be in the interests not only of the trust funds, but also in the interests of building up a balanced capital and financial structure in our Republic.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about what the hon. member for Florida has just said. He is a man who has experience of financial institutions, and he is worth listening to. Who can say the mutual trusts have grown too rapidly? If it is alleged that mutual trusts have grown too rapidly it means the whole South African economy has grown too rapidly. These mutual trusts are controlled by the law, and are told how they must invest their money, how they must have it distributed, what returns they must offer, that they must provide a fair market and say “We will give you a buyer’s price and a seller’s price”. All that is done. What price is considered too high? Is the price of land too high? What right have we to say trusts have grown too rapidly? There are other shares in South Africa which have grown very rapidly. That is South Africa: We are made that way. Our country is developing very rapidly.

The hon. member realizes that State loans are not popular. He is quite right. They are not popular. As I say, you get depreciation and you get the same sum of money back; and when you do get your money back it has depreciated. If one has an 8 per cent loan with the present rate of depreciation then what one is getting is not 8 per cent but only 5½ per cent, because the value is worth 2½ per cent less every year. What should the Government do in these circumstances? I made a suggestion at the second reading that the Government should have its own mutual trust fund. Here the Government sits with all these magnificent assets that we hear so much about from hon. members on the other side. They have Iscor, Sasol and these manufacturing companies they run. They should form their own mutual trust and sell the assets to the public. They cannot say: We cannot do that. They are doing it through the I.D.C. I have just given examples. Why cannot the Government form its own mutual trust and include its loans in the trust? That is their answer to the situation. For them to say to private enterprise: “You must pay for loans. We are not prepared to sell our other assets to you.” I cannot see the justification for that. But I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister: It goes very much further. At the present time the Government is embarrassed by riches. They do not know what to do to get money out of circulation. I have suggested here over and over again that they should start selling their commercial assets to the public. Let the Government form units, consisting of shares in Iscor, Sasol, etc.—we are told they are doing so very well—and sell those to the public together with loans. Sweeten them up with loans! That is a way out. But in the case of the private sector and these holding companies, they have paid income tax on everyone of their holdings. They have to pay tax on everyone of their holdings before they go into the trust; they are in the same position as a finance investment company. A finance investment company cannot be taxed a second time. They draw their interest, their dividends, from a company that has already paid company tax. The Government will be in a fortunate position. That is the answer, but to say to private enterprise, and especially to the small man in mutual trusts, that he has to pay this special amount, is, I think, an imposition.

Mr. Chairman, if I, like the hon. member for Kensington, had not wanted to oppose this clause, I certainly would have been persuaded to do so by the speech of the hon. member for Florida. He has echoed sentiments this afternoon in this House which I think we have already heard from either the Minister of Finance of from the Deputy Minister—I do not remember which. What the hon. member for Florida has said to this House this afternoon in effect is that, if any organization or group of organizations starts a new field of endeavour in South Africa, and it is successful, then the Government will step in and take part of the rewards flowing from that success from them.

I did not say so.

This is the implication namely, that, because these funds have grown so rapidly …

You are putting words into my mouth which I did not use.

Because they have grown so fast, because they are such an important part in the financial sector to-day, we must get them to invest some of their funds in Government stocks. This is something terrible. We had some differences with the Government a year or two ago on another instance of taxing ability and success with the special beer tax. Now it seems we have the first repetition. Is this going to be Government policy in the future, namely that, as soon as one has achieved success, the Government is going to say: “I do not want my fair share which I get by way of taxation (which heaven alone knows is high enough to-day); I want a little ‘agterskot’. I will have something else, please. You boys are doing too well. You better give us something of it, either directly or indirectly.” Because, Mr. Chairman, there is another very important factor here. If I as an individual want to invest my money in Government stocks to-day, I can to very large extent, certainly much more than I can afford, invest in tax-free investments. If I have invested in R.S.A. Bonds, in the Post Office, in the Special Savings Bonds, I have a tax-free investment. But here, through an indirect investment in Government stocks, through a direct investment in equities, the Government is forcing me to invest in Government stocks and I do not get the tax-free benefits. This is wrong. I have listened now to the hon. member for Potgietersrus, and the hon. member for Florida and I am going to listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am sure that, if two members have not convinced me, the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to do so either.

Mr. Chairman, if ever I was convinced that we on this side of the House were right and that the Opposition was wrong, and was actually speaking with its tongue in its cheek, then it really is so to-day.

Hon. members will in the first instance agree with me that, where savings are being gathered in, it is the ambition of any government to gather them in where they can be usefully employed. There, I think, the hon. member for Kensington and other hon. members will agree with me. It is very important in the composition of any structure that the economy should not be disrupted. The hon. member for Parktown, who has just sat down, was, I think, a little unreasonable in making the statement here, and basing an entire Committee Stage speech on it, that we are now, as it were, handicapping a successful undertaking. This is not so, but the hon. member will agree with me that, if the economy is disrupted by a particularly strong movement emanating from any particular undertaking, then it is essential that the Government restore the balance of the economy. I think that is what the hon. member for Florida tried to say, and that is what I am absolutely convinced of, namely that because the machinery for these unit trust schemes have been modernized by the Government during the past year, these undertakings have developed tremendously successfully and, in point of fact, have attracted a tremendously large proportion of the savings of the country. The hon. member for Kensington and also the hon. member for Parktown will surely agree with me: it is not only the people who previously invested in shares and who bought other shares, mining shares, industrial shares, or whatever, who are now investing in these schemes. No, Sir, to a very large extent it is savings which are being gathered here. By that process, the hon. member will agree with me, savings are withdrawn from other investment fields which perform a useful service in South Africa. Here I mention the building societies above all. Does the hon. member agree that money should simply be withdrawn from the building societies indiscriminately, and that it is not the Government’s task to do something about it? Surely hon. members opposite agreed with us that the building societies serve a useful purpose in South Africa, that they have a good image in South Africa and that they have been well managed in the past. Over and above this they fulfil a very useful purpose in that they provide housing in South Africa. I say that, since a situation has developed in the past years where the stream of money has run so strongly in the direction of these unit trust schemes that such useful undertakings as the building societies are, as it were, being prejudiced, I think one should ask oneself, as the hon. member for Florida said, whether it is not time that we should try to restore the balance.

But we have done so.

We have made attempts as a result of that. But one does not make attempts on the one side only. One makes them on the other side as well.

The hon. member for Florida also rightly referred to the position on the Exchange today. I must honestly say that I am somewhat concerned about that, not because these unit trust schemes are successful, but because this stream has developed so very rapidly indeed that we have lately witnessed, as it were, an uncontrolled increase in prices on the Exchange. Will the hon. member for Kensington disagree with me if I say that this is very largely attributable to the popularity of these unit trust schemes? The unit trust schemes’ business is based on buying quoted shares.

This means a lack of confidence in the stability of our money.

No, Sir, that is not the case at all. We are not discussing general matters here. We are discussing specific matters. The position is that the unit trust schemes’ business is based on buying quoted shares. The hon. member for Kensington said the other day that people have become growth-conscious. They do not want interest any more. This is so. For some reason or other they have become growth-conscious. They prefer growth to interest. Now they see those possibilities in the unit trust schemes. We do not want to destroy the idea of the unit trust scheme. But we must take care, after all, that where they disturb the balance to a certain extent, we are not altogether indifferent to that fact. The hon. member for Kensington drew a comparison between the unit trust schemes and an ordinary investment company. But surely they are not the same. If the hon. member says that we cannot draw a comparison between an insurance company and a unit trust scheme, then we can most certainly draw much less of a comparison between a unit trust scheme and an ordinary investment company. In the first place one can only buy some of the shares of an investment company. The entire composition of such a company is different. One is compelled to go and sell those shares on the Exchange again, whether you obtain buyers or not. The risk involved in is inevitably greater. In the case of the unit trust schemes it is different. One buys units and the more rapidly people buy them the more rapidly they are made available to be bought. This is the problem of the unit trust schemes, namely that they are forever growing bigger and bigger, like a snowball, as it were. The two are not the same. If the holder of units of a unit trust wants to sell his shares, then the unit trust schemes are compelled to buy them back from him. Admittedly the price does not always increase. The price can also vary, as in the case of other shares. But one at least knows that one has an article which one can re-sell and the price of which is fixed. Hon. members should bear in mind that, as I said in the second-reading debate, these schemes are successful to a large extent because they are constituted by law and because the investors are protected by statutory provisions. Hon. members should also bear in mind that there is in fact such a thing as the services provided by the State. These undertakings experience large growth as a result of State control through the administration of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, because these schemes are nothing but financial institutions. I think hon. members must view them in that light. They are financial institutions and nothing else. While they are growing and gathering strength as a result of the success achieved with the purchasing of shares on the industrial or business market, it should also be borne in mind that the Government has to provide certain services to make those successes possible. Since the Government has to provide those services, such as electricity and so on, I think that these schemes should, like other financial institutions, also make a contribution to the funds for the provision of those services. Therefore I am convinced that there is really no argument against these unit trust schemes also having to purchase approved Government securities. It is also done in the case of other financial institutions, such as building societies, banks and insurance companies, although the hon. member for Kensington does not think that insurance companies are comparable. They are even more heavily bowed down by these obligations and hon. members do not object to this.

What about the investment companies to which the hon. member referred?

No, investment companies are something else altogether. An investment company is an ordinary company which invests in other companies instead of in industry or business. One then purchases the shares in the investment company. The structure of the unit trusts is completely different.

Clause 5 of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to clause 8. The first concerns lines 27 and 28 on page 9:

I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what is meant by “such other statements as may be necessary”? I do not understand what is meant.

The second matter I want to raise concerns paragraph (h) of the same clause on page 11. Here provision is made that there is to be sent to every unit holder each year in respect of each unit portfolio “a review of fluctuations in the prices per single unit during the period in question”. I understand that there is a similar provision in the section dealing with securities. But this clause is vague. According to the literal interpretation of this clause, once a year when you report to your unit holders you would have to advise them of every single fluctuation that has taken place in the course in the unit during that year. I understand that that is not the position. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what he understands is required under this subsection. The other item relates to subsection (2) (b) which provides that the holder of a unit in respect of every fixed property company of which shares are held in any unit portfolio is to be supplied with the balance sheet of every separate underlying company each year. It seems to me that this is an imposition on the company. It has, in addition to the balance sheet of the unit, to send a copy of the balance sheet of every underlying company at the same time. It seems to me that there are easier ways of telling the unit holder what his interests are than by way of a balance sheet. There is this strange position that the only asset that the underlying company can hold is a property. The balance sheet will tell him nothing. He is not allowed to mortgage it, but I will come to that at a later stage. As there is only property, the balance sheet will tell him nothing. All he needs is a list of the properties and what they were purchased at. You will then have the same information exactly It is true in regard to the income and expenditure of a property, this will vary between property and property. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me what his views are in regard to these three matters that I have raised.

The points raised by the hon. member are of a fairly technical nature. It is not so easy to reply to them. In the first place the hon. member referred to “and such other statements as may be necessary, in regard to the operation of that scheme during the period which ended not more than two months …” The hon. member wants to know what that means. These are the statements which the Registrar needs, and which are necessary, to submit a proper survey of the financial position of the scheme. Among others there are the auditors’ certificates and the documents connected with these. With regard to the hon. member’s second point I just want to mention that section 10 of the Act lays down more or less the same requirement in respect of schemes and exchange shares. The survey must cover the full period of 12 months to which the statement relates. I am afraid that I did not quite follow the third point raised by the hon. member. If the hon. member will repeat it, I shall go into it.

My point was that here the management company is obliged to send to every unit holder each year, a report which will include a review of fluctuations in the prices per single unit during the period affected. That is over a period of 12 months. The literal interpretation is that the review will reflect every up and down in the value of the unit. This seems to me to be ridiculous, difficult and not serving any purpose. I understand that, in regard to securities, the interpretation of this subsection by the Registrar is somewhat different to what it appears to mean to me. I therefore want the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what is going to be required in terms of this subsection. Is it going to be a literal enforcement every time that there is a change in the units?

No.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says no. I am glad to hear that he says no. The hon. the Deputy Minister and I are in agreement on one thing and that is that when you have Bills which are to become Acts, it is just as easy to say in that Bill what you intend to have done, than as not. It seems to me that in some of these financial measures there is a looseness of wording that can well be avoided. When you want clarity and specificness in a Bill, there is no Bill more important than one which deals with financial matters. You have to be specific as to what is required; otherwise you get a dozen interpretations and nobody knows what is wanted. I would therefore like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what he wants under this clause.

I do not think that such a problem exists in respect of what the hon. member mentioned. What is required in terms of this clause is general review. If the hon. member would look at the clause, he would see that it says “review of the fluctuations”, in other words, a general review, and not every fluctuation which may possibly occur. If one refers to a “review of fluctuations”, it leaves me with the impression that a picture must be given of the general fluctuation which occurred and most definitely not of each fluctuation.

What is required? Does it mean that once a year when this report is made to holders of units, if they put the lowest figure to which a unit has dropped during the year, and also the highest, will this then be what is required? This will then be a review of the fluctuations in prices per single unit, from the highest to the lowest, during that period.

I think that would be sufficient on a monthly basis and not only the lowest or highest per year. I think that perhaps the lowest per month and the highest per month would be regarded as sufficient.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a question in regard to the new subsection (4) (a). This is where a unit company is prevented from hypothecating, pledging, or otherwise encumbering its property. In other words, this means that when a property company goes into a property unit, the underlying security must be unencumbered. When I first read this Bill my opinion was that this was an unfair imposition to place on a person who is investing in properties through a property unit company. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know that one invests in property to make profits. You usually have a mortgage bond so that the amount of equity you invest can show a greater return than if you had no mortgage. I had the opportunity of discussing this Bill with some of the Deputy Minister’s officials, and they raised a point which at the time impressed me and that is that due to the fact that bonds were normally reduceable, it was, among other reasons, better that there should be no mortgage whatsoever. At the time it struck me that this point of view had quite a lot of merit. On thinking it over, however, I must tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I have come back to my original thoughts, and that is that basically I can see no real reason why a property unit should not have properties which are mortgaged. I will agree that there should be a limitation to that mortgage. I do not think that we would want them to mortgage their properties up to 80. 90 or 100 per cent. In any case, all they can do with the money from a mortgage is to buy other property, because they are limited to property investment in the main. That must be the main reason for their existence. It used to be the sole reason but, if I remember correctly, it must now be the main reason. I believe that if you want to foster investment in properties through fixed property trusts, you will do the best service to the investor by allowing a property to be mortgaged or hypothecated, to a limited extent of, say, 50 per cent. I am not querying the amount, but the principle. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give further consideration to this question of hypothecation and mortgages.

Mr. Chairman, there are two provisions in this Bill and both are for the purpose of protecting the investors. The first is that the management company must possess all the shares of a property company. This is the first provision, which may seem strange, but which is regarded as essential in the interests of the investors. The second provision is that the assets of the property companies may not be pledged. The hon. member rightly said that it is customary that assets, especially immovable property with which business is done, are mortgaged, in other words, that they are to some extent purchased with borrowed money. It is also true that it is then hoped that this money can be used to obtain greater benefits than the interest which has to be paid on the money. Therefore the hon. member regards it as undesirable.

I think his approach is that it may adversely affect the development of such a property unit trust scheme if those properties cannot be pledged. If the properties could be pledged it would mean that more money would be available and that a greater amount of business would be transacted. However, our considered opinion is that various things can occur. It is our experience that, especially in businesses such as these where the public is entitled to a large measure of protection and where you often have people who handle funds in such a way that it is not always in the interests and to the best advantage of the investors, it is better to follow the safe course. No gaps must be left which might lead to malpractices. Although I do not want to mention examples now of what can happen, it is our considered opinion that it is better that these immovable properties are under no circumstances allowed to be mortgaged. The idea is that the shares of these properties should also be purchased with the money coming in for units, or of course, also from the capital of the management companies. However, the immovable properties belonging to these property companies must be paid in full. They cannot be mortgaged. I regard this merely as a protective measure in the interests of the investor, and I think that we should retain it as such, rather than run the risk that a greater amount of business is done by means of borrowed money.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned I had pointed out that the Bill was not quite as innocent as the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech would have us believe, and I want to thank the Minister and his Department for the courtesy they showed us in discussions on this measure to get the full import of exactly what was intended. We took the trouble to have discussions with the Department and the Minister because we are just as interested as the Government in seeing that proper control is exercised over areas where the Africans are congested, especially as far as health provisions are concerned, the supply of sanitation and the provision of water, etc. Because of that, we wanted to make quite certain what exactly was intended in this measure.

There are nine clauses in the Bill and we are able to support clauses 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. I want to deal with them very briefly first. Clause 1 abolishes the tax, as the Minister said, in the Fingo township at Grahamstown. We support that, because it is quite wrong that there should be a law which people disregard. Some of the Africans apparently paid the tax and others did not, and we quite agree with the Minister that it is impossible to collect this small amount which falls due by way of civil proceedings. Rather than have the law flouted, we believe that the law should be amended so that there is no obvious disrespect for the law. In regard to clause 2, we support it because it brings into line the procedure and legal presumptions where action is taken by a local authority in dealing with locations, hostels, etc., with the procedures taken by the Minister when he acts. Clause 5 we think is necessary in order to facilitate proof of the carrying out of an official duty. It is often assumed that an official carries out the law in the course of his duties and the production of an advertisement in the Gazette as proof that he has done so seems quite rightly to be sufficient prima facie proof or evidence. Of course, if he has not carried out the requirements this can be proved by the aggrieved party in court. The production of the Gazette is not in itself final proof of the allegation that a Bantu authority has in fact been established. Clauses 6 and 7, as the Deputy Minister stated, seek to legalise the appointment of agents for the Transkeian Government in urban areas. It is amazing how many consequences of the various Acts are overlooked by the Government in drafting fresh legislation, and they should have foreseen this when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed. However, we do not oppose their appointment; as the number of citizens of the Transkei who live permanently in the urban areas of the Republic increase, the duties of these representatives will become increasingly important and eventually they will become ambassadors. Clause 8 creates a presumption of the commission of an offence in regard to Bantu beer, under the Bantu Beer Act. While we are chary of extending presumptions in law, this is one which is generally accepted and it is in keeping with Liquor Act and the Transkei Liquor Proclamation, and we are prepared to accept it. But clause 9 is not quite so simple. This allows the different corporations established under the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act to sell Bantu beer brewed in breweries established by the corporation to local authorities or employers authorised to brew beer for their employees and also to retail bottle-stores. The sale can only take place on a permit issued by the Minister and I hope the Deputy Minister will give due regard to objections by local authorities or other parties who may be affected by this competition. If the municipality is opposed to the permit being granted, of course it will not buy the beer from the brewery, but bottle-stores and employers might be prepared to take the beer. I mention this competition from private enterprise because we have seen just recently a criticism of the Xhosa Development Corporation for its competition with private enterprise. It is coming more and more into such competition, and the Minister will have noticed that even the Transkei Assembly had a recent debate on this issue. I do not want this to be regarded as a precedent for such corporations to compete with private enterprise, and we will always watch this type of enterprise very carefully. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance this afternoon or tomorrow, when he replies to the debate, that he will not allow undue competition from the corporation which is in an advantageous position, because of its financial arrangements, as against private enterprise.

Clauses 3 and 4 are different. The Minister has stated that clause 3 has become necessary because of uncertainty as to whether the Bantu Urban Areas Act can be applied to the prescribed areas, and the law advisers have thought it necessary to amend the law to make quite certain that they are entitled to do so. The Bantu Urban Areas Act has very wide ramifications, and it is not the only Act which can be applied to these prescribed areas. We also have a number of other Acts, including the Bantu Labour Act. When the question of establishing urban areas was originally discussed in 1964 there was a lengthy debate, not necessarily on that subject alone, but on all matters contained in that amending measure, which dealt with the Urban Areas Act, the Bantu Labour Act and other provisions affecting the urban Bantu. I do not intend traversing that debate again, but we are opposed to the extension of powers proposed in this Bill for the same reasons that we apposed the 1964 measure which brought into being prescribed areas and subjected them to the Bantu Urban Areas Act, the Labour Act and other Acts I have mentioned. We believe that our aim should be to build up a stable middle-class type of Bantu in the urban areas, and this is where we differ fundamentally from the Government. It is well known what our policy is. We wish to further family life and to give security to the Bantu and also to allow private ownership in their own townships to Bantu who are permanently urbanised in the cities. Our approach to the Bantu differs fundamentally from that of the Government. We say and we face the fact that these Bantu will be there permanently and that we will not rid the urban areas of them, and we say that since they will always be in the urban areas it is our duty to try to give them the human rights of family life and greater security and to try to build up a middle-class that will have a stake in maintaining law and order. That, in short, is our approach to this subject. The Government, on the other hand, regards the Bantu in the urban areas merely as sojourners. In this connection I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Heilbron when we discussed the 1964 measure. This is what he said—

He also said—

He then proceeded to deal with the different laws. This is the fundamental difference between the two parties on this issue. I do not intend going into the matter any further. As I have said, we had a very lengthy debate in 1964. The reasons which we then advanced are the reasons why we are now opposed to allowing the establishment of these prescribed areas and applying the Urban Areas Act and all these other Acts to them because, you see, Sir, a prescribed area can be established anywhere. All urban areas to-day are prescribed areas, but any rural area could also in fact become a prescribed area.

That is already so in the Cape.

During that debate in 1964, the present Minister, who was then the Deputy Minister, admitted that it could be applied to any farm; in fact, he cited an instance where it was going to be applied to a particular farm. What we feared then was that the whole of the Republic would become a prescribed area. I think the hon. member for Heilbron supports the view that that should happen, because he made it quite clear in his speech that the rural Bantu was just as much affected. Let me quote what he said—

1. (1) By the amendment and revision of the Native Labour Regulation Act in order to control the movement of all Bantu in the cities as well as on the farms through labour bureaux and aid centres to assist the Bantu in the white area not to overlook the primary purpose of his presence in the white area;
2. (2) the amendment of the Native Trust and Land Act in order to regulate the sojourn of the Bantu in the rural areas for labour purposes only;
3. (3) the amendment of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act to emphasize the temporary sojourn of the Bantu in urban areas for the purposes of labour only.

Under the 1964 Act, in terms of what is proposed now, any rural area can be declared a prescribed area, with the exception of a scheduled or a released area. This legislation before us to-day has been introduced largely, I think, because of what happened at Sebokeng. Section 4 deals more specifically with Sebokeng, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, because of the court case when the Appellate Division held that the Government had acted irregularly. It had therefore become necessary to amend the law so as to be able to apply it to that particular area. The difficulty there, of course, is the released area of Evaton. What the Government tried to do there was to apply the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act to this particular area, which was a released area, and the court held that it could not do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that he has overcome the trouble in the meantime by applying the provisions of section 25 of the Administration Act of 1927. There is some protection under that Act for the released and scheduled areas because the State President can only apply these general laws to scheduled areas or “such areas as may by resolution of both Houses of Parliament be designated as native areas for the purposes of this section” Apparently in, I think, 1958 a resolution was passed by both Houses of Parliament with regard to this particular released area of Evaton, and the Government then found itself in the position of being able to act under section 27. I must say that I am very pleased that the Minister has given notice on the Order Paper that he intends withdrawing section 5 (A) in clause 4 of the bill and making the necessary consequential amendments to sub-section (2). If the Minister had not done that, he would have been able to bring any released area within the ambit of a prescribed area and that, of course would have been quite contrary to the very principles of his own party, to respect the rights given to scheduled areas and to released areas. If the hon. the Minister says to us, “If we do not pass this bill then we cannot govern at all,” we would be in a quandary because, as I have said, we too want efficient control over these areas where the Bantu are congested, but the fact is that they can operate as they are doing now.

I am not certain whether that is legal either.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is not certain whether that is legal either. It is a great shame that there should be all these doubts as to what is legal and what is not. We are battling here to understand these measures and that is why I had so many discussions with the Department —because of the difficulty of understanding these laws. I just wonder how the poor Bantu who are quite illiterate are going to understand these laws.

We are very reasonable.

As far as the released area of Evaton is concerned, some of the land is owned by the Trust and other land is owned by Bantu. In fact, it was a Bantu land owner who took the Minister to court. I am not certain whether it is true, but I understand that there may also be Indian owners in the area. Again that would create more confusion as to what the position is when Asiatics also own land in the same area. But with regard to released areas, land is privately owned by the Bantu in those areas and the present residents probably entered into contracts of lease with other Bantu. Otherwise they would not be there. There would not have been the congestion. They must have entered into contracts Once the Urban Areas Act is applied to that area all the other provisions controlling influx into urban areas as to who may stay in urban areas and who may be put out of urban areas will be applied. I am worried about the rights of the Africans on this privately owned land in the released area. We can understand the Minister taking powers as far as land owned by municipalities is concerned, but there may be people now hiring land in the privately owned land in Evaton, who under the Urban Areas Act would not qualify to be on the property although they have entered into contracts on privately owned land. Released areas should at all times, just as scheduled areas, be treated on a different basis. It is because of this uncertainty as to what will happen in this area, as to how the provisions of the Urban Areas Act and the other Acts will be applied to the released areas and to the Sebokeng areas generally, that we oppose the measure in this form.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have not taken this decision to oppose this measure lightly, and we realize that there are difficulties. The whole outlook of our party towards the urban Bantu is fundamentally different from that of the Government as to who can remain in the areas and the security of tenure, which I have mentioned before. If the Minister introduced a measure recognizing in some way our point of view, we would have given it our support, but as the measure stands, we are giving a blank cheque to the Deputy Minister and the Government to apply all the laws which we criticized when they were passed in 1964. For that reason, although we wish to help the Minister to have proper control, especially as far as health services are concerned, we will oppose the Second Reading

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to say a few things about the very last clause, arising out of the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei. He expressed an objection to the fact that in this last clause we are granting the Bantu Investment Corporation, as well as the Xhosa Development Corporation, the right to brew Bantu beer. His objection is that they will compete with private initiative. Now I want to say at once that it has never really been our policy to encourage private initiative to brew Bantu beer. Up to the present it has always been done by municipalities, and they sold it to the Bantu. They are also Government bodies, just as the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation. I really do not think he has much ground for objections.

It can happen.

He does not oppose it either, and that is why I am not making a special point of it.

The major objection of the hon. member is actually to clauses 3 and 4. As far as clause 3 is concerned, he made it very clear that there were two fundamental differences between the Government and the Opposition. I am glad that it has been placed on record once and for all now that such differences do in fact exist between the two sides of the House. The first is that the United Party has stated clearly and unequivocally now that they advocate the Bantu obtaining proprietary rights in those parts which are to-day known as the White homelands or the White area in South Africa, because this has never before been accepted since 1936. The 1936 legislation distinguished clearly between Bantu and White areas. Since an arrangement came into existence in regard to land tenure in South Africa between Whites and non-Whites, there has never been any question of the Bantu having any right to land tenure in the White areas. In regard to the Bantu residential areas near the cities, the places which we call locations and where the Bantu are living, the Bantu have, according to the 1936 legislation, never had the right to acquire proprietary rights there. Now the hon. member for Transkei has stated very explicitly that the United Party no longer adheres to the 1936 legislation, but that they want to grant the Bantu further land tenure and proprietary rights in the White areas as well. [Interjections.] They want to grant them proprietary rights in the Bantu residential areas. We can never agree with them on that point, because it is a principle of the National Party that the Bantu shall never obtain more territory than was allocated to them in the legislation of 1913 and 1936, that is to say, the scheduled areas and the released areas. There is that part of the quota which they still have to obtain and which will not be met by the released areas because the released areas did not make adequate provision, it did not make provision for 7¼ million morgen. We shall therefore have to make the remaining portion of 7¼ million, as stipulated in the 1936 legislation, available outside the released areas. However, the hon. member made the point that we should grant the Bantu in the White areas further land rights, and that they should also obtain proprietary rights there. He has stated it very clearly now, and I hope that we will all take final cognizance of that now.

The second aspect which the hon. member was very concerned about, was that he wanted very much to retain family ties. However, the hon. member for Transkei did not make it clear whether they also supported the legislation in respect of influx control. If they support it, they cannot have much objection to this clause 3.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Are there not certain Bantu who have rights of occupation? I am talking about the section 10 Bantu. Do they not have the right to live in those Bantu residential areas?

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Section 10 has never granted proprietary rights to any Bantu in any residential area.

Right of occupation. Do you not understand Afrikaans?

All that they have, is a measure of permanence to live there on White land. The Bantu residential area is White land. He only obtains a right of occupation on Bantu land, in the same way as the Bantu on the farm obtain right of occupation from the White owner as long as they work there. It is White land. Section 10 does not grant proprietary rights to the Bantu. The point made by the hon. member for Transkei is that the Bantu should now be granted proprietary rights. Surely he stated it emphatically. That is the fundamental difference between that side and this side of the House.

I now want to come to that question which the hon. member for Transkei has not replied to yet. He has not replied to the important question whether he is in fact opposed to influx control. What is in fact being accomplished by clause 3 of this measure now? We know the situation very well, particularly as regards the large number of smallholdings surrounding our cities. Just consider a place like Johannesburg. There numerous smallholdings have been laid out which to-day fall under the jurisdiction of the Transvaal Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for the purposes of control. They are not in an urban area, they are smallholdings. This is also the case in Pretoria, in Bloemfontein; this is the case in all our cities, as well as in Vereeniging, etc. I now want to mention the case of Sasolburg, because it was once my constituency and I have knowledge of the tremendous problem they are faced with there. We have a large concentration of Bantu on the smallholdings, and the small farms about Sasolburg. No control exists there because they are not prescribed areas. Even if they should be declared prescribed areas, it is still not an urban area, in other words, the Bantu Urban Areas Act can still not be applied in all respects there, and consequently there is no control over the Bantu housing in and influx to those areas. The hon. member now states that they are concerned about the health of the people there, about sanitation facilities, about fresh water. They are concerned about those things, but when this kind of concentration takes place then what suffers are these very things, sanitation, water provision, as well as the health of those people. This happens when there is no control, and this can only take place if it is made a prescribed area, as well as an urban area, so that all the relevant acts can be applied there. That is what we are dealing with here. We are not dealing with the rights of occupation of Bantu there. If we were merely to allow the concentration to take place there, things would become worse. A tremendous infiltration from those areas into the urban areas is taking place. They are what we call the infiltrators. At night they stay on the smallholdings or on the small farms, but by day they work in the large area, and this is prejudicial to our entire influx control. It must be remembered that influx control is also being applied in the interests of the Bantu, so that there will not be too many Bantu employees in that particular area, because that would lead to unemployment. By applying influx control, a check can be kept there on the number of employees, in order to ensure that this number corresponds to the opportunities for employment existing there, and in this way unemployment is being combated. This is one of the major advantages connected with this.

Is it not true that the Government’s policy was relaxed as far as Sasolburg is concerned because Bantu workers with their families were allowed to move in there?

I shall state what is actually happening there. The Bantu Workers are not being allowed to move in there with their families. A large number of Bantu were illegally employed there, both by building contractors and housewives. Their employment was subsequently legalized, that is all, but there was no question of their families also being able to move in. The women who were employed as domestic servants, were allowed to work there, but they still had to go and sleep with their husbands in their dwellings outside on the farms, or else with the particular family on the premises. That is all that happened. Housing on a family basis was not allowed. That is what actually happened.

Weren’t married quarters provided at Sasolburg?

In Sasolburg a small amount of houses on a family basis was allowed for permanent officials such as policemen, guards, etc. Only 243 were allowed in there on a family basis. The other people were accommodated in hostels. The problem with which we have to contend here, arose from the number of illegal Bantu who streamed to Sasolburg and went to work as domestic servants there. Subsequently permission was only granted to them to go and work there, but they still had to go and live with their families on the farms, or on the premises of their employers. The problem which is being overcome by means of this clause is that the area surrounding such a complex can also be declared an urban area and a prescribed area. This will consequently make it possible to exercise control over the housing of those people, and over the influx into that area. It is a very unsound thing that such large numbers of Bantu come to squat around our cities, because a tremendous number of squatters problems are being created around our cities. Squatting was a heritage the United Party left us, and we had to erect places such as Meadowlands and Diepkloof so that the squatters’ towns surrounding our major cities could be cleared. We do not want a repetition of that evil, that is why we are now coming forward with this legislation which will empower us to exercise proper control there.

Then I come to the question of Sebokeng. In the first instance I want to make this statement. Although the Evaton area is a released area, it must also be remembered that under the legislation recently adopted, i.e. in regard to the better administration of designated areas, it is also a designated area. In other words, it is not simply a released area, because it has to a certain extent lost its character as a released area, and it has under this new legislation, assumed a new character which entails that it is also a designated area. That makes a tremendous difference. It is not only an ordinary released area, such as we have in the Bantu areas, but we also have a released area which is also a designated area.

Under what Act?

Under the legislation on the better administration of designated areas. We introduced that Act especially in order to apply it to that area. That area acquired a new character as a result.

I also want to make the following statement here this afternoon. We must remember that, although Evaton is a released area, it is fundamentally in fact what we call a black spot which has to be cleared.

When are you going to do that?

I first want to know whether the hon. member supports the principle. If he says they support that principle, then our hand will be greatly strengthened, and we will be able to begin straight away. The fact that we want to replace this area with Sebokeng is the first step in the process of clearing that entire complex, and we still have to go a long way. It is a densely populated area, and many Bantu have land tenure within that area. If we clear it, we will have to clear it in the same way as we have cleared all the other black spots. It is a long process, and we follow the method of first replacing it with proper housing. Certain legislation has been passed, certain proclamations and regulations have been promulgated, but the Appeal Court ruled that the regulations were ultra vires because the area still had the character of a released area. Now we are sitting with a problem. We promulgated regulations in terms of the Native Administration Act, 1927, but we want something better than that because we want to rectify the matter in legislation as well. That is why this clause has been inserted into this measure so that the position can be rectified legally, and placed beyond the regulation level. Because, in respect of regulations the possibility exists that a case may be taken to court again and the regulations may again be declared invalid. Then we will be back where we started. That is why this legislation is now being introduced in order to rectify the matter.

I should like to impress upon hon. members that fundamentally that place is a black spot, and these are the first steps towards clearing it. At the moment that black spot is nothing but a squatters’ town such as we previously had about our cities. It has in fact become what we call a squatters’ town, that little released area there. We must clear it. In the same way as Meadowlands in due course became the show-window of Bantu housing on the Rand, I want to prophesy that Sebokeng will also become the show-window of the Vaal Triangle. We shall have a beautiful residential area, instead of the conditions at present prevailing at Evaton, the squatters’ circumstances which are at present prevailing.

I hope there will not be much more discussion in regard to this measure, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be given the support in this matter which he deserves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron has told us now that at Sebokeng there is a horrible slum situation and he hopes that in the course of time the situation will so improve there that it becomes a model place. I want to remind hon. members opposite that as fast as poor housing and other conditions are cleaned up in certain places, even worse slums seem to spring up in other places. We have heard it mentioned now as regards Sebokeng; we have been told how bad slum conditions are there. We pointed out before how at Hammarsdale a tremendous slum is developing there, notwithstanding that new planning is supposed to be taking place there. There are countless places in the Peninsula where the same can be said of places where Bantu are living. I make no reference to other areas all over the country.

I should like to deal immediately with one or two points which the hon. member raised in regard to the attitude of this side of the House. We have always said that as regards the Native townships around our major towns it will be possible for the Natives to have controlled home ownership. It will be limited to these Native townships which have been set aside for Natives and in which they are living. I want to ask the hon. member for Heilbron, when he mentions Native townships here today, does he ever imagine that anybody but Natives are ever going to live in those places? If he honestly cannot say he believes anybody but Natives will ever live there, does it matter whether they are on a 30-year lease basis or on a controlled home-ownership basis, which is what we on this side stand for? We say it will make no difference save that it will improve the position because it will give stability to people having home ownership. It will enable them to raise bonds on the security of their property, and so improve their homes and their position. But if they live in those houses on a lease basis, those factors fall away.

But you are asking much more than home ownership.

No.

Would you give home ownership?

At the moment there is home ownership [Interjections.]

Order! Who is making the speech now?

The validity of our approach I believe is confirmed by what was dragged out of the hon. member for Heilbron, namely that the permanent Bantu officials at Sasolburg have married quarters there in which they can live with their families.

There is no home ownership there; there is no long lease either.

No, but there is certainly recognition that there must be life on a family basis for those people. Again I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: What are you afraid of? We are so accustomed to hearing from the Deputy Minister that we see a lion in our road, and I say to hon. members opposite they are seeing a lion in the road as far as this matter is concerned. They know only too well that the houses in Soweto will never be occupied by anybody else but Natives and they are seeing a lion in their road if they have fault to find with controlled home ownership for the Bantu there. It may make a small political point for them.