I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Last Friday, at a time when no one could reply to him, the hon. member for Yeoville thought it an opportune moment to leave with the country, over the week-end, a totally wrong impression about the hon. member for Umlazi, who is now sharing a bench with me. What we had here from the hon. member was a tirade, an accumulation of many emotions in the United Party. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville: in that tirade against the hon. member for Umlazi he displayed his ignorance of the political history of South Africa, worse still, he displayed an inability to see the crossing of the hon. member for Umlazi to our side of the House in its true perspective. The hon. member began by reproaching the hon. member for Umlazi about certain moneys which he allegedly owes the United Party of Natal. Immediately after this on Friday we had a debate about a certain organization which has its own system of courts and of tax assessments. I do not know whether the United Party moves more or less on the level of that organization. But I do want to say this: As I see things, it is not Mr. Harry Lewis who owes the United Party something, it is the United Party which is deeply in debt to South Africa. That debt is in respect of its failure over a long period of years to answer the call of South Africa’s interests and to place this country’s interests first. As I know my country, South Africa, it will not, like the hon. member for Yeoville, recommend that that debt be written off, but South Africa is going to demand payment of that debt by the United Party and it will be paid in the form of ever greater support for the National Party.

In order to represent the hon. member for Umlazi to the country as a person lost in the wilderness of the National Party, the hon. member for Yeoville suggested that English-speaking persons who cross to our side of the House are very unhappy, and he mentioned the name of Mr. Blyth Thompson, who allegedly felt unhappy in the National Party. The hon. member for Umlazi was kind enough to show me a letter which he received from Mr. Blyth Thompson on the 12th instant, and which reads as follows—

He continued by saying that for the sake of convenience he was enclosing an article that he had recently written in an English newspaper, and this article by Mr. Blyth Thomson concludes as follows—

Why do you not give him a seat?

That is now the man whom the hon. member for Yeoville says feels unhappy in the National Party.

But over the week-end something else happened in consequence of the hon. member for Yeoville’s tirade, i.e. an article appeared in the Sunday Times which implied that the son of my hon. colleague here had intimated that my colleague should now resign his seat. The hon. member has informed me that his son telephoned him yesterday morning and said that there was no truth in it whatsoever, and that in addition his son had said to him—

What about his undertaking?

That is the image which the hon. member for Yeoville tried to build up of the hon. member for Umlazi. But the hon. member for Yeoville did not stop there. He went on to discuss the whole matter of unity between the two main population groups in the country. [Laughter.] An hon. member over there is laughing. He is welcome to it, because he is still going to cry a lot in the days that lie ahead. The hon. member for Yeoville said the following to the hon. member for Umlazi: I wish you joy in the National Party, but frustration and unpleasantness lie ahead for you, because the National Party does not really want unity between the two population groups.

Hear, hear!

An hon. member over there says “Hear, hear”. But the most disgraceful thing of all that happened then was that the hon. member for Yeoville quoted a previous Prime Minister of this country and a previous leader of our Party in proof of his statement. He quoted from the year 1942, long before the above-mentioned gentleman became Prime Minister, but he did not quote a single word from the days when he was in fact Prime Minister and in a position of leadership in the country.

Do you change so quickly?

The hon. member for Yeoville suggested that the late Advocate Strydom said in 1942 that in South Africa there was only room for the Boer’s outlook on life. But let us now get the background to this. 1942 was a time when there was no recognition for the Afrikaans language and for the Afrikaans section, and what was the Boer’s or the Afrikaner’s standpoint about this matter at that time? His attitude to life was this. In 1942 his standpoint was, as it had been 20 years before and as it is to-day, that one will only achieve true unity in this country when there is equal treatment for both language groups; and when he refers to the Boer’s attitude to life, he refers to the Afrikaner’s attitude to life, and he refers to the National Party’s attitude to life, as it still is to-day, and what is wrong with that? But I want to remind the hon. member for Yeoville that in that same year, i.e. 1942 a leading person on their side, a Minister of their government adopted a standpoint and said, “Our mass immigration scheme will eventually help to plough the Afrikaners under”.

Who said that?

The hon. member knows who said it; it was Colonel Deneys Reitz. [Interjections.]

You are telling a lie.

Order! Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say that the hon. member was telling a lie?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did say so.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but what he said is untrue.

Order!

But, Mr. Speaker, is that unparliamentary?

No, but the hon. member is merely repeating his words in another form.

May I say that what he is saying is not true?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Seeing that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout got up now, I want to deal with him. It is not necessary to go as far back as 1942 to see what the attitudes of the two Parties were in regard to national unity, but while I am dealing with the year 1942, let me also say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he was the one who revolted against his own Party in that year when he wanted to have inserted in the constitution of the youth division of that Party that one of their aims was to make the youth more nationally conscious and to imbue them with a love for typically South African things. But then he got into difficulties with the leadership of that Party and that is one of the reasons why he left it.

I now come to a later year, i.e. 1960. After the hon. member had left this side but had not yet joined the United Party, he had a long interview with the Cape Argus, which gave him a build-up and said, “Watch this young man Japie Basson”. With reference to 1949, the correspondent asked him the following—

That is the little party which he had at the time. The report continues—

The hon. member for Yeoville complained that national unity does not come into its own in the National Party, but just look at what is going on in his Party. I want to ask the hon. member for Umlazi to pardon me if I make use of his metaphor of the other day, but I want to say that national unity in the mouth of the United Party is also something that is wrapped up in gift wrapping. Did that Party not fight the 1948 election with posters which, inter alia, stated, “Stamp out Nationalism”? Yet they speak of “national unity”. They wanted nationalism, the strength of any nation, to be stamped out.

That is nonsense; what about Hitler’s nationalism?

Before the election that Party issued a pamphlet in which it was stated that nationalism comes from the troglodites. That is how they made fun of the most important element in a nation’s life, i.e. the love for that which is its own, because they had no time for it.

That is rubbish!

Yes, the hon. member can say it is rubbish, but it is the truth. (Interjections.]

Order!

Then the hon. member for Yeoville challenges the hon. member for Umlazi to prove that national unity is not the entire philosophy of the United Party! Let us now test how these two parties stand in respect of this matter. Mention was made here of the late Mr. Strydom, who is alleged to have said that there was no place for English. Here in my hand I have a speech which the late Advocate Strydom delivered in 1955. The heading reads: “South Africa belongs to both sections—the creed of Mr. Strydom.” He said—

That is what Mr. Strydom said. That was his political creed. In English there is a saying, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Let us see what happened to national unity during the times when the two respective parties had the opportunity of leading the country. Are the memories of United Party members so short that they have forgotten that in the days when they ruled, there was the greatest measure of conflict and disunity between the two population groups? At the same time, has there ever been a period of greater unity and ever-increasing unity in South Africa between the two sections than specifically under the National Party? That was in spite of sustained efforts all those years to make our English compatriots believe, “These Nationalists want to take away your language and drive you into the sea.” I recall that the late Senator Conroy said, at the time of the inauguration of the Voortrekker Monument, “Beware! When the monument is inaugurated there will be thousands of rifle commando members who want to shoot the English.” Such were the stories that were disseminated. Where do we stand, apart from an ever-increasing unity developing between the two sections? Where do we stand to-day in respect of bilingualism and the recognition of the two official languages? I venture to suggest that along the road of bilingualism under the National Party Government we are far ahead of other countries in the same position, for example Canada and Belgium. Last year there were a number of Canadian parliamentarians on a visit here. Among them was one Mr. Chatterton, who was born in South Africa, grew up here and also had his university education here. I asked him: “How does the situation in Canada compare with that in South Africa in respect of bilingualism, as you have encountered it during the three weeks you have spent here”? His reply to me was, “South Africa is far ahead of countries in the rest of the world that find themselves in similar circumstances”. He added that it was clear to him that a policy was being pursued here which made it possible for bilingualism to grow as it is growing here in South Africa.

But if, like the hon. member for Yeoville, we speak of the philosophy of the United Party in regard to this matter, let us see where the National Party’s view in this regard comes from. Reference was made here to General Hertzog’s leadership in the period when he called his policy in respect of the two language groups a “two-stream policy”, which was the correct one. The late Dr. D. F. Malan said the following in a speech in Durban in 1950 which he called a “heart-to-heart talk, as a South African to fellow South Africans”—

Here the United Party must listen—

Equal rights, not merely stated in writing and proclaimed, but carried out in practice—

There is the political philosophy of the National Party. A few days ago the hon. member for Kempton Park welcomed the hon. member for Umlazi to the ranks of the National Party and said to him that he was prepared to call him an Afrikaner as well. Whether this will be accepted everywhere is irrelevant here, but I want to say that what the hon. member said, and it was accepted as such by the hon. member for Umlazi, was a manifestation of the generous spirit of the Afrikaner. The Afrikaner never sees his aspirations as being in conflict with those of his English compatriots. He sees his aspirations as positive South African national aspirations. That is why Afrikanership, however broadly it may be described, will never contrast with South Africanism. National Afrikanership is the stimulus of South Africanism. It is the battery in the machine of nationalism in South Africa and that is why people who believe in the ideals of the National Afrikaner always welcome it whenever children of South Africa come home, as the hon. member for Umlazi has done.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stellenbosch who has just spoken, went back a long way and I wonder why he did not go all the way back to the days of Simon van der Stel. He referred to old statements, speeches, placards—I noticed he omitted one placard, namely the notorious “Baster-plakaat”—and made certain statements which I think it is necessary to answer immediately.

The first thing he referred to was the question of levies paid by United Party members. I want to tell the hon. member that those levies are entirely voluntary. We, as a party, also do not pay members of Parliament to be information officers. We do not give them fulltime jobs as information officers. What amazes me is the fact that that hon. member got the job as the chief information officer, because the information he quoted to this House is not as accurate as it could be. The difference is that the National Party pays its members to put out propaganda, and that we in our party believe in it … [Interjections.] There are no members in these benches who are paid by the party to put the party views across the floor of this House. The hon. member for Stellenbosch also quoted a letter from one Blythe Thompson, a letter written to welcome the hon. member for Umlazi into the Nationalist Party. I wonder why he did not tell us something else about the history of Mr. Blythe Thompson. I wonder if he will not tell us why he was stopped from writing articles in the Nationalist Sunday Press. I wonder whose decision that was and why the Nationalist Party felt that his views were no longer acceptable to an organ of the Nationalist Party. I wonder why the hon. member for Stellenbosch does not tell us why Mr. Blythe Thompson issued a public statement saying that, because he did not feel at home, he felt that a new party should be formed consisting of English-speaking people who support the ideas of the Nationalist Party. In other words, he could not find a home. I wonder why he did not tell the House that the same Mr. Blythe Thompson, when he saw the results of his election, said: My gosh, look how those “hairybacks” have let me down. That is what he thought of his friends in the Nationalist Party. He called them “hairybacks”. I challenge the hon. member to deny it. That is the sort of unity they have—they call each other “hairybacks”! [Interjections.] He said it in Margate the day the result came out. There are witnesses for that, plenty of witnesses.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch dealt with another matter—the question whether the hon. member for Umlazi should have resigned his seat. The hon. member for Yeoville said that that was a matter for his own conscience. But I think it is necessary that we should know what the attitude of the hon. member for Umlazi was towards this question when other members left the United Party. I have here with me a photostat copy of the minutes of an executive committee meeting, the Provincial Executive Committee of the United Party in Natal. At that meeting there was present a Mr. H. Lewis, M.P. The date of this meeting was the 17th October, 1963. Four resolutions were passed at that meeting. One of these motions was one of full confidence in Sir De Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the party, and in Mr. D. E. Mitchell. This resolution was passed unanimously. It was, therefore, also supported by the hon. member for Umlazi. Another resolution passed at that meeting and one I wish to read, is as follows—

So, the hon. member for Umlazi, when other members of our party crossed the floor to the other side, was party to a resolution calling upon them to resign the positions to which they were elected while being members of the United Party. This, therefore, is not a question of debate but one of fact; it is a question not of what we ask of the hon. member but of what his own attitude is to the moral issue of accepting election under one party and thereafter crossing the floor. The view for which he voted and which was placed on record was that such people should resign the positions they held. There was another interesting issue which was raised at this meeting. This was under the heading “Finance”. Earlier on the question of contributions had been dealt with. In this resolution the following is recorded—

Here, then was a member of the executive who felt that M.P.s should take a greater part in fund raising and then went on to do sweet blow all in this matter of the collection of funds. This led to a discussion within executives of the party about the failure of the hon. member for Umlazi to play his part as a constituency representative. The hon. member for Umlazi also has the nerve to say that his divisional committee in Umlazi has not sought his resignation. But why does he not tell the public of South Africa that there has been no annual general meeting of his divisional committee for two years? There has been no meeting of his divisional committee during this period. One of the problems we had was his total failure to keep his organization going. However, the party has taken action and there is a divisional committee in part of that constituency. I can tell this House now that on Tuesday last I presided over a meeting of divisional chairmen amongst whom was the chairman of a major part of the Umlazi constituency. That meeting unanimously, without any qualification, adopted a vote of a full confidence in the Leader of the United Party, Sir De Villiers Graaff, and in the chairman of the party in Natal, Mr. D. E. Mitchell. At the same time that meeting called upon the hon. member for Umlazi to resign his seat in Parliament. That resolution was passed unanimously by all divisional chairmen in Durban, including the divisional chairman of Durban South, Mr. Kaltwasser. It was supported by the chairman of Port Natal covering another part of the adjoining constituency.

These, then, are the cold, hard facts. For the rest I leave this matter to the words of the resolution calling for the resignation of the hon. member for Umlazi, the wording being, “calls upon him as a man of honour to honour his written undertaking to resign his seat in Parliament should he ever cease to be a member of the United Party”. There I shall leave the matter.

What about Norman Eaton?

The hon. Minister is the last one to talk about this.

Did Norman Eaton join your party?

Order!

What I am surprised about is that the hon. the Minister left the United Party because we were too liberal. Now, however, he is sitting on the same benches with a member of the United Party who left us because we are too conservative! He now takes people to the left of us who find us too conservative. Let me ask the hon. Minister, when he is expecting the hon. member for Houghton to join the Nationalist Party? Because that is all that is required to give a true picture of this welcome which has been given. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Stellenbosch dealt at some length with the question of unity, national unity, and the attitude of the Nationalist Party. I shall not attempt to go back into history. As a matter of fact, I do not need to, because South Africa knows the record of the Nationalist Party; it knows how recently in history it changed its whole approach and attitude. But let me say that long before the Nationalist Party ever dreamt of unity or thought of using the slogan of national unity, the United Party was practicing it. History will still record that the years from 1933 onwards were the golden years in the history of South Africa, in so far as race relations were concerned. This was said by no less a person than Mr. N. C. Havenga—the golden years in co-operation, he said. Who was it that broke that co-operation? Who was it that smashed that unity?—hon. members sitting on that side of the House. When they had had an opportunity to work together in true unity they rejected it and threw out their own leader. General Hertzog. They threw him upon the ash heap because he wanted to cooperate and had respect for the rights of the English-speaking people. That is the party that has the nerve now to talk about national unity and to say that they are able to create national unity but that the United Party is not.

Did Mr. Havenga sit here or over there?

Sir. I cannot give kindergarten lessons to people who have not got the mental capacity to benefit by those lessons. It would be a long and slow process to try to educate that hon. Minister and I am afraid not even I could succeed. Sir, if we look back in history, the one thing that has run through the history of the United Party like a golden thread is its dedication to the ideal of bringing together our people into a united nation. Every time that unity has been broken it has been broken by the Nationalist Party and its predecessors and those who sat on that side. Those of us who served South Africa in the last war know that in those forces you have a living dedication to national unity such as that side of the House can never even pretend to emulate. Sir, no one asked in the forces. “Am I English or Afrikaans?” We were South Africans, proud to carry the name of our country. Many of us were seconded and we not only wore the red tab but we had the words “South Africa” written on our shoulders so that everyone could know that we were proud to be South Africans, and wherever we were, English and Afrikaans alike, we put South Africa first. That was the one ideal to which we were dedicated in those days, and that spirit is marked by graves in every continent of the world. That spirit is marked by sacrifice, not to a party but to the South African nation. Sir, that hon. member talks about national unity and accuses the United Party of not believing in national unity. Sir, where was he when we were trying to bring the people together? What was he doing and what was he saying when we were trying to unite the people of South Africa? Our unity is not the unity of “bywoners” or the unity of “absorption”, it is the unity of equality, equality in every sense.

What success have you had?

We have had plenty of success.

Look at your numbers.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Community Development is making a lot of noise. Do you know that on Thursday night the hon. the Minister started a speech by saying that the Treaty of Vereeniging was the biggest mistake that British Imperialism ever made; that the war of those days was still continuing. Does he deny it?

It was won in 1961 when we got a Republic.

Sir, when that hon. Minister talks in an election campaign, when he sweeps up emotions, then he says that the political battle of South Africa is a continuation of the Anglo-Boer war. That is his attitude, and that is the party that talks about unity. He says that they won that war in 1961 and then he asks the English-speaking people to back him to continue the struggle—a war that he went on fighting 50 years after it officially ended at the Treaty of Vereeniging. That is an admission that all this talk in the Nationalist Party of national unity is, in his own words, a sham when he says that up to 1961 they were still fighting the Anglo-Boer war. He cannot deny it.

Tell us about the Kaffirs at Dannhauser.

The hon. the Minister should not talk; he should be ashamed. I did not imagine that anyone could make the sort of speech that he made. Sir, that attitude is now confirmed by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. In his own words the first time that the Nationalist Party ever thought of national unity was apparently in 1961. If he were still fighting the war up to 1961, how could he have been fighting for unity, a unity which divided the people?

On whose side was he?

Let us ask that hon. Minister: Did he fight on both sides in that war? Was he a “bittereinder”, or was he a “hanskakie”? He fought on both sides. [Interjections.] No, when it comes to the building of a nation I am glad that the Nationalist Party has accepted our view but it will be the United Party which will put that ideal into practice and which will give content to it; and a couple of showpieces in a showcase, even if one of them is playing with a yo-yo are not going to make national unity. [Interjections.] What we want is not showpieces; we want the broad spirit of South Africanism, a cross-section of all the people of South Africa working together. [Interjections.] I do not need to battle with that hon. Minister; he is not allowed to play the yo-yo in this House, but that is about all he is any use for.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch touched on policy. I have not the time to deal at great length with what he said, but I noticed that he made no attempt whatsoever to defend the hon. member for Umlazi’s complete misquotation of United Party policy or to defend the fact that the hon. member for Umlazi did not even know the decisions of the 1967 congress of the United Party. In this House he gave as his reasons for resigning policies which he himself, as a member of the party and a member of that congress, had the opportunity to vote upon and which he accepted and stood for when they were changed in 1967 in regard to the Coloured people. But he did not even know it; he voted for it but he did not know. Sir, if a member leaves a party because he disagrees with policies which do not exist, what foundation, what substance, does it give to the reality of his convictions in regard to the things we are fighting over in the field of South African life? Because the real issues still remain. The real issues have not been touched, and that is what we have to get back to in South Africa. We can have these temporary red herrings, but fundamentally the problems remain unchanged, the problem of the failure of the Nationalist Party in the field of Bantu affairs, the failure of the Nationalist Party to produce a policy which can work and the admission of the Nationalist Party that its policies cannot, and in fact will not work. We are now getting day after day and week after week a conflict of views within the Nationalist Party. There is conflict of approach, but both sides admit the failure of their own party’s activities. We have on the one side people who say: You are failing because you are not going fast enough. On the other hand we have people who say: The Nationalist Party has been untrue to the character and the tradition of the Nationalist Party because it is moving away from its own policy. That is something which must be resolved on that side of the House, but there is one point of agreement among all the critics of the Nationalist Party. They all agree that the Nationalist Party is failing to produce an answer and that it is failing to implement the theories for which it stands. I find it interesting to read the Nationalist Press and see how this conflict is growing. Instead of coming here and talking of placards and statements in 1942, we have to get back and deal with the issues that face us in 1969. Our leader has given to South Africa a guide to the sort of destiny that we want. If the Nationalist Party are sincere in the line they take, then within the framework of our policy there is room for them to come with us. The differences between us are differences which depend on their sorting out their own disputes.

However there is one fundamental issue on which we have heard very little from that side of the House, and that is sovereign independence. We of the United Party stand for the maintenance of white leadership and political control. That is fundamental. That side of the House claims to stand for total sovereign independence for separate black states. That is the crux, that is the issue that we cannot run away from, that is the issue which the hon. member for Umlazi stated was one of his main reasons for leaving us, namely he did not believe in the maintenance of white leadership and political control. If he did not believe in that and he has joined the Nationalist Party, then the Nationalist Party must now tell South Africa that it believes in the abandonment of white leadership and political control. It cannot have both.

That is childish.

What is childish about it? If an hon. member says he has left us because we stand for white leadership and political control and he says that is “bedekte baas-skap”—if he leaves us and he joins the Nationalist Party—then that party’s policy must offer him an alternative. The only alternative to white political control is the abrogation of control. There is no other alternative—either you have control or you do not. Therefore the Nationalist Party stands branded by their latest recruit as a party which does not believe in white political control over the whole of South Africa.

Have you noticed, Sir, how in the debates this year we have heard virtually nothing about sovereign independence? We have heard nothing about this total sovereign independence which the Nationalist Party is to grant. The hon. the Prime Minister touched on it as the ultimate, but at Dannhauser the hon. the Minister of Community Development said it would take hundreds and hundreds of years. I quote him: “Hundreds and hundreds of years.” Now I ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts his colleague in the Cabinet …

Was it at Dannhauser that you referred to the Kaffirs?

It was at Dannhauser that we perhaps provoked the Minister, I do not deny that, but he is a Minister and he said at Dannhauser that sovereign independence would take “hundreds and hundreds of years”. His words were, “Die Bantoe is honderde en honderde jare agter die witman”. Does the Prime Minister now mean his policy is only to be applied in hundreds and hundreds of years’ time?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement and I want to thank you for the opportunity of making it now. It deals with a completely different matter from the one which the hon. member may perhaps have in mind. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has drawn up an information pamphlet in which details about old-age pensions, war veterans’ pensions, blind persons’ pensions, disability grants, subsistence allowances and family allowances are made available for public information. This pamphlet is ready now and will be distributed free of charge by this Department as from to-day. It deals with the means test, assets, incomes, allowances, etc. In addition I just want to mention that pamphlets will be made available free of charge to all hon. members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, during this Part Appropriation debate hon. members on both sides of the House discussed a large variety of subjects, and that is of course their right. Hon. members have the right, in a debate such as this, to discuss any matter which they regard as being in the national interest. However, I hope that hon. members will understand that it is impossible for me in my reply to go into all the matters at length which have been touched upon during the course of this debate. Initially I want to confine myself to those matters which directly affect my own Departments.

To do this, I want to begin with this magic word which we heard so often, i.e. liquidity; liquidity in finance which is causing so much difficulty in the world, because there is too little of it there, and in South Africa, because we have too much of it. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House, for example the hon. members for Constantia, Parktown, Pinetown, Kensington and others, all expressed their ideas on this question of liquidity in South Africa, which is giving us problems, this excess of money the effect of which can be seen in the high Stock Exchange prices and the high prices of properties and which may be a factor in a possible upsurge of new inflationary conditions in the country. Hon. members know by this time that this liquidity is attributable to two factors.

In the first place it is attributable to this factor that we have succeeded in South Africa in making the measures which we applied in respect of inflation as effective as possible. I think it was the hon. member for Pietersburg who remarked here that it was as a result of the sound internal policy by means of which we kept inflation in check, kept it in check far more successfully than in most countries of the world, that we repressed the demand for goods and services, that we curbed imports and made more goods available for export, and that we succeeded in obtaining a more favourable balance of payments on current account for the past year. I think it speaks volumes for the economic financial policy of this Government that it has, through its internal policy, succeeded, as far as its trade balance is concerned, in obtaining a more favourable result during the past year. But hon. members also know that the liquidity which we are talking about and which has caused these problems on the Stock Exchange, as well as the latent inflationary conditions, is attributable to the tremendous influx of capital from overseas. This is partly attributable to the lack of confidence in the currency of other countries, but also, secondly to the tremendous confidence the world has in the economic and financial stability of South Africa.

During the past year—I have already mentioned this figure—a total of R400 million in capital flowed into South Africa, not only as a result of a lack of confidence in conditions abroad, but also as a result of the tremendous confidence in the economic position of South Africa. South Africa finds itself to-day in the almost critical position in which a country like Germany finds itself because its economy is so sound. That is why conditions are sound as far as its reserves are concerned, and as far as its liquidity is concerned, this is on the increase. It is a strange position in the financial world that countries such as Germany and South Africa, because they are economically strong, and because they followed the correct policy, found themselves faced with a liquidity problem. This liquidity which we have to deal with has had certain consequences in South Africa, to which hon. members have referred.

Hon. members on the opposite side all spoke about the unhealthy conditions on the share market, and asked what we wanted to do and what we would do to keep those conditions in check to some degree. I want to say at once to hon. members now that I have no intention of making any dramatic announcement here to-day in this regard. Hon. members know that there is a bill on the Stock Exchange, which will soon be before this House. I do not want to anticipate this legislation. Hon. members know that we have issued warnings. It has been said here that those warnings did not help very much. But hon. members also know that things happened last week on the Stock Exchange in Johannesburg which resulted in certain people burning their fingers. 1 predict that if things continue in this way, even more people will in future burn their fingers on the Stock Exchange. We are living in a capitalistic country, and it is not for us as Government to keep on introducing all kinds of control measures. One cannot by means of checks and regulations make clever people of those who want to be stupid. Those people who want to keep on burning their fingers will keep on doing so, and it is not for us to intervene, unless conditions start becoming really chaotic and would have a prejudicial effect on the economy of the country.

The second matter in which we are interested as a result of the liquidity is the latent inflation we have in our country. Hon. members on the other side have stated that it is no longer latent but is already here. The hon. member for Constantia mentioned the figure 3.4 here, but I think the hon. member made a mistake. It was not a 3.4 increase or a 3.4 rate of inflation, but the hon. member took the points by which the figure had increased since January, 1968, i.e. from 121.8 to 125.2 in January of this year. The rate of inflation for that period is only 2.7, which compares very favourably with that of the rest of the world. I do not want to say very much on this point, but I just want to mention two things which hon. members in this debate made such frequent reference to, perhaps in order to stir up emotions a little. The first statement they made was that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer”. I think that that is a very emotional and dramatic cry which the hon. members are uttering for the sake of effect, without their having acquainted themselves with the true state of affairs. In this connection I only want to mention a few figures, and now it seems strange to me that hon. members on the opposite side should have stated that they do not want to listen to figures and that we should not use figures as an argument.

I want to ask them what one must use if one cannot use figures in a financial debate? One’s emotions? That is tantamount to saying that we may as well throw our watches away and never look at them again and that we will tell the time by the rising and the setting of the sun. Let us, with reference to the statement “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” see what the actual figures are, as furnished by the South African Reserve Bank. Between the years 1962 and 1967 the real gross domestic product per capita in South Africa increased by 23.66 per cent. The income from property in respect of households at constant prices—and with income in respect of households we mean interest, dividends, rentals received, and the profits of non-incorporated business undertakings, i.e. the business side—increased by 33.75. Total wages and salaries in constant figures, increased by 36.15 per cent. These are the actual figures based on data furnished by the South African Reserve Bank, and they boil down to this that the increase in the gross domestic product during the second and the third quarters of 1968 accrued principally or entirely to salary and wage earners. I want to mention these figures again: Revenue accruing to households, i.e. for interest, dividends, rents and profits, 33.57 of the gross domestic product, while wages and salaries increased by 36.15 per cent. The wage earner and the salaried man, therefore, were much better off than the ordinary business man. In spite of this hon. members on the opposite side state that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer”.

Are you going to tell the poor they are not getting poorer?

If the hon. member had understood what I had said, he would have deduced that from what I said. But perhaps the hon. member did not understand. Recalling the hon. member’s speech of a moment ago I think he was a little punch drunk and that he did not understand very well what was going on. Hon. members on the opposite side also tried to make political capital out of the position of pensioners. They almost moved us to tears at the fate of pensioners in the country who are allegedly suffering such hardships as a result of the inflationary tendency in the country. Sir, we are aware of the fate of pensioners. Throughout its entire term of office this Government has increased pensions virtually every year. The Government gave them far more than they lost as a result of price increases and inflation. I shall take only one figure as an example. Between 1964 and 1968 consumer prices increased by 12.8 per cent, while the average social pension for Whites increased by 80.5 per cent. In the years 1948 to 1967 the price index increased by 81 per cent, while social pensions increased by 158 per cent. If hon. members would only look at these figures and would try to begin to understand these figures, they would see that the increase in social pensions took place at a much more rapid rate than the increase in the cost of living of those same persons. I come now to the question of inflation. I want to draw hon. member’s attention to what they actually presented to us. If we accept the liquidity of South Africa as a problem and we wanted to solve that problem there are a few recognized courses we should adopt. The first course we should adopt is perhaps to drain off part of the money in circulation and part of the liquidity by means of fiscal methods. That is the policy which the Government has been following over the past two to three years. With this policy it has succeeded in stemming the flow of inflation.

After having listened during the past few weeks to the speeches made by hon. members on the opposite side of the House, I must honestly admit here that they offered us little assistance in this regard. I cannot, as you will understand, discuss taxes to-day, but I do nevertheless want to point out again that when hon. members on that side request us to put a stop to this liquidity and this inflation and to take steps against it, one member after the other proposes each time, as they have again done during the past week, that this, that or the other tax should be abolished. They mention a whole series of taxes which should be abolished, without recommending anything in their stead. On the contrary, their proposals would entail that even more money would be brought into circulation. It is that inconsistency in the spirit of those hon. members which I simply cannot understand.

The hon. member for Rosettenville touched upon the matter of gold-mining tax. He asked us, whatever we did, not to create a situation where gold mines would have to close down as a result of taxation. I want to point out to the hon. member that the tax on gold mines is in fact a progressive tax, and that the tax on gold mines is such that mines with a low profit margin do not pay any taxes. Most of the marginal mines are paying no taxes whatever. On the contrary, there are about a dozen and a half marginal mines which are not only paying no taxes, but are receiving assistance from the State.

The hon. member for Kensington asked me about the American company Asia. He asked me whether it was right that this American-South African Investment Corporation should be exempt from taxation to such an extent and why South Africans could not have a share in that company.

Why is it an exception?

The hon. member will probably know that that company was established in 1958. In 1958 we had found ourselves in a situation where our reserves were dwindling rapidly. It was a situation in which the Government was doing its utmost to attract investments from overseas, in order to improve our reserves and our balance of payments. It was at that time, when there were not many people who, as a result of different factors, had enough confidence in South Africa to invest here that this American company came forward to invest an amount which subsequently increased to more than $30 million here in South Africa. They then entered into an agreement with the Government. The Government was glad to get that foreign currency, and they entered into an agreement with that company. They said to the company: If you will invest money here, we will not tax you on the capital profits which you make from shares and the sale of gold. Of course the intention in the first place was not that it should be a speculating company. The company intended investing here, particularly in our gold shares, purchasing gold, investing here as an investment company and not as a speculating company. The concession was granted to that company that it would not be taxed on profits which they made from the sale of shares or of gold. Under normal circumstances people are not eligible for taxation when they convert their investments into cash. One is only taxable if one begins to speculate in land or in shares. That was the intention with our actions in regard to that company.

Was that to have remained the position for five years?

There was no time limit.

Did they promise that they would invest in that way for five years?

They promised that they would keep their investment here for at least five years. The concession granted to them by the State was granted to them in terms of the Act of 1958, the Income Tax Act of 1941, as subsequently amended. In terms of that Act the Government has the right to grant such concessions to such companies. Once such a concession, as far as taxation is concerned, has been granted, it remains valid.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Was this company not granted more than that? Did they not also have the right to take money out of the country in gold, if they wished to do so after five years?

I did not deal with that matter because the hon. member for Kensington only mentioned the aspect of taxation. Other benefits were also granted to the company. For example, if they decide to realize their investments after five years, we would give them the dollars so that they could do so. That is to say, if they should want to sell their shares after five years, they would be allowed to take their money out of the country.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister a question? Is this the only company which is enjoying that privilege?

It is the only company which I know of which obtained these privileges from the Government at that time. It was done as a result of the circumstances in which we had found ourselves in 1958. Now the question is suddenly being asked why South Africans were not allowed to invest in that company. But surely the reply is very clear. As far as foreign currency and reserves are concerned, it would not have helped us at all if South Africans had been able at that time to buy shares in sterling in that company. The reason why the Government allowed this to take place at that time was so as to obtain foreign currency. Foreigners, and particularly Americans, bought up those shares. In that way we brought more than 30 million dollars into the country at a time when we needed them very badly.

We are now talking about the draining oft of liquidity. I maintain that we can do so by means of taxation, and in that respect hon. members on the opposite side were not of great assistance to me.

The second way is to negotiate loans at home. We are negotiating such loans. The hon. member for Parktown asked me a question in regard to the difference between the R250 million I mentioned and the R400 million my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, mentioned. These figures cannot be compared with each other. My hon. colleague said that the liquidity in the country is calculated at R400 million, which ought to be drained off. I mentioned the figure of R250 million as the amount I hoped I would be able to drain off by means of the various loans which the State had recently introduced. With that I did not mean that the total liquidity was only R250 million. I am hoping to drain off R250 million by means of domestic loans, if all goes well. The other method of swallowing up this liquidity is of course by means of foreign loans. If we cannot draw off enough money at home, then we must let the money leave the country. In order to allow the money leave the country we need foreign currency. Sometimes it sounds strange that one should have to borrow money overseas in order to allow money to leave the interior of the country, but I think that hon. members know that we are not borrowing money overseas because we need the money, but because we need foreign currency; we receive the money and then neutralize it, but use the currency in order to allow money to stream out of the country from the private sector and in this way reduce liquidity in the country. In this respect the hon. member for Parktown asked me whether I believed that I would be able to get sufficient currency so that I would not be compelled to sell gold to such an extent that the price would drop below 35 dollars per fine ounce. I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that one should of course be very careful in matters such as this, but after what I experienced in both America and in Europe, and in view of the knowledge I acquired there, I have every confidence that if South Africa needs the money it will be able to obtain foreign currency in the form of loans.

The hon. members for Constantia, Pine-town, Parktown and others put further questions to me. The hon. members for Parktown and Pinetown both asked me whether I was not being too optimistic in respect of the gold problem; whether I had reason to believe in the future of gold with a view to the different kinds of problems which are bound up with this. Yes, I am relatively optimistic; I am reasonably optimistic about all those problems, but one must be very careful in one’s attitude and one’s actions in this regard. In particular, there are three problems which stem from this, and I want to go into briefly. The hon. member for Pinetown asked whether, under present circumstances, I was not being too optimistic. In the first place I am thinking here of the problem of the marketing of our gold. The question is whether I have the right to be optimistic about the possibility of an arrangement being made in respect of the marketing of our gold. To that I want to reply that I think I have the right to be optimistic for three reasons. In the first place it has been my experience that people in America and in Western Europe are all desirous that a solution should be found to this problem of South Africa’s gold. The general view which one finds among bankers in the Western World is that South Africa conducted itself in a very responsible way in these circumstances, and from what one hears the view that South Africa was not fairly treated in this adjustment of matters because resolutions were taken in regard to gold, of which South Africa is the most important producer in the world, without South Africa having been consulted in those resolutions. South Africa is enjoying a great deal of sympathy among the financiers of the world. Most of them intend taking steps and all of them are desirous of a solution being found as soon as possible to the problem of the marketing of our gold. The second reason is that bankers and financiers in America and Europe are beginning to realize what the value and the position of gold is, and that one cannot solve the monetary problems of the world unless there is a regular flow of new gold into the monetary system of the world. They believe that a method has to be found by means of which a greater proportion of South African gold can be added to the monetary reserves of the world. I have here in my hand a publication, “Monthly Economic Letter: January, 1969” of the First National City Bank of New York. In this a section is devoted to the gold question of to-day and reference is made to a work by a certain Gilbert, who is an important man in this field, and with reference to that it is stated—

It is felt that something has to be done, for the sake of international monetary equilibrium, to add new gold to the monetary reserves.

A third reason for my being optimistic about the marketing of our gold is because it is being generally realized that the two tier system has in fact failed; that the two tier system is in fact a gimmick. We know that the Western nations did not expect this system to survive for long; that when the system was introduced in March of last year, they did not interpret it in the way they are being forced to interpret it now; that while it was at first stated in the agreement that they thought that there was sufficient gold in the monetary system and that it was not necessary to import any more gold, America subsequently, on 17/18th March, came forward with a request or directive to all central banks in the world to the effect that they do not purchase any more gold from South Africa. I do not think the Western countries interpreted it in this way at the outset, and when they accepted this directive from America, they did not think that it would remain in force for such a long time that they would still be prevented from purchasing gold from South Africa to-day, almost a year later. Most Western countries are eager to buy more new gold. They are dissatisfied with this two tier system, with its two piles of gold, one of which is monetary and the other free gold, two piles which have to remain separate. The world is not satisfied with that. They regard this system as a failure. It has not achieved its objects. For that reason I believe that they are eager for an agreement to be negotiated soon.

In the second place my hon. friends asked me whether I was satisfied that the price of gold would never drop below 35 dollars per fine ounce; whether we would not be compelled to sell gold in such a volume that we forced down the price to below 35 dollars per fine ounce. The reply to this question of course ties in with the reply to the question which I gave a moment ago, i.e. whether we will be able to obtain an adequate supply of currency in order to continue with our gold policy. But apart from that matter I also want to furnish a positive reply to this: As far as I can see ahead, I do not think that we need be afraid that the price of gold will drop below 35 dollars per fine ounce, for the following reasons. In the first place we have requested the International Monetary Fund to purchase currency against the offer of gold. I have already, in my introductory speech, mentioned that we definitely believe that it is our legal right to purchase currency with our gold. I have already mentioned that we are not alone in this, but that Western nations believe that we are right, and I have already mentioned that the managing director of the Fund, Mr. Schweitzer, and his staff and his lawyers, in other words the Fund itself, agree with us that we have the right to purchase currency in exchange for gold. We find ourselves in this legal position, and I am certain that if we ever found ourselves in the position one day where we could claim our legal rights, if circumstances were such that we could come forward with those legal rights, our standpoint would be maintained. This is the legal right to purchase gold at 35 dollars per ounce.

But there is a second reason I want to mention here. I do not think the Western nations will ever allow the price of gold to drop below 35 dollars per fine ounce. We must remember that it is not only America that has gold, but that the Western nations, the Governments and central banks, have far more gold than the U.S.A.; and those Western monetary powers would not like to see the gold price dropping below 35 dollars per ounce. It would entail a tremendous loss to them. Not only would it mean a tremendous financial loss to them, but it would give rise to chaos in the monetary system, and we can assume that the Western nations will do everything in their power to prevent the price of gold from dropping below 35 dollars per ounce.

In the third place, I really do not think it can drop below 35 dollars per ounce. At the moment it is floating about in the region of 42, 50, 70. If it were to drop far below that price, I think the gold buyers, whether speculators, hoarders, manufacturing jewelers, or industrialists, would again take a hand in the matter. I believe that the buyers would again take a hand, and as soon as the price fell to any considerable extent, they would once again begin buying up gold, and that they would build up the price again. So I cannot imagine the price of gold dropping much lower than it is at present.

In the fourth place, we must remember that the supply of free speculative gold is virtually exhausted to-day. This time last year, in April or May, the calculation was that 2,000 to 3,000 tons of gold had changed hands and that most of that gold was hanging over the market. To-day we think that those, say, 2,000 tons which had been hanging over the market and which could have come onto the market at any time, have dwindled so that all that remains are a few hundred tons perhaps, and that within a few months all that speculative gold would have been drawn away from the market; and if gold is no longer being fed into the market from the outside, the price of gold would of necessity either have to remain constant or increase. My friends have asked whether I feel optimistic about the maintenance of the price of gold at 35 dollars per ounce. I say that I think I have reason to feel optimistic about that.

The last question in which I was asked whether I felt optimistic was in regard to the increase of the official price of gold. Am I optimistic about an increase in the gold price? These are things one has to be very careful about. These are things which one cannot predict. There are so many incalculables in this whole matter. In his speech the hon. member for Pinetown mentioned the situation of America. During the past 18 years America has once had a surplus on its balance of payments. Last year America had a major deficit. This year for the first time in many years America again had a surplus on its balance of payments. How suddenly things change! One of the reasons why America had a surplus on its balance of payments again was that, apart from the control measures which it announced, there was a rebellion by a small group of students in France, and there was the entry of Russian soldiers into Czechoslovakia. Political factors which nobody could have foreseen and the extent of which it was impossible to measure, had an influence on the monetary position in Europe and this proved to be to the advantage of America. One does not know what financial and other factors may develop in future; these are things which nobody can predict.

But to conclude with the reply to this question as to whether we are optimistic, I want to say in the first place that I find that more and more people are prepared to begin thinking along the lines of an increase in the gold price as one of the methods of solving the monetary problems of the world. This is not the only solution. We must not imagine that gold or an increased gold price is the only solution to the world’s problems, but it is one of the methods. More and more people are beginning to think along these lines. I find that bankers, financiers, economists who years ago did not even want to discuss it, are now prepared to consider it as a possibility because they believe that if they are to be confronted by a choice of having an increased gold price or of having more and more control measures they would prefer an increased gold price to the control measures. In the second place, I believe this because, in my opinion, the attempt to demonetize gold has been a failure up to now. A few months ago our struggle was not so much a struggle to effect an increase in the gold price; our struggle was principally to maintain gold within the monetary systems of the world, when there were threats on the part of America that, rather than to increase the gold price, it would cut the ties between the dollar and gold completely, and would demonetize gold. I think that that danger has passed for the moment—but that does not mean to say that it cannot crop up again in future. Pronouncements were made by Europeans who did not want it, and even by the former American administration. This makes us think that, for the time being at least, we have won that point, that it is being realized that gold is an indispensable element of the international monetary structure upon which one must build, and that one may not deviate from that. To-day people are beginning to think that the arguments which we always put forward in respect of gold do in fact have some merit. Formerly they spoke about “the vagaries of gold production”; they could not rely upon it because gold production was so uncertain. But to-day they are beginning to realize that it is not so much the vagaries of gold production which were at fault. The production of gold has been reasonably stable during the past few years, but because the price of gold was so low the gold did not find its way into the monetary reserves. They were always talking about “that barbarous metal, gold”, and were asking whether the world should have confidence in this barbarous metal. But now they are slowly beginning to find that the metal may be barbarous, but the world has confidence in it; the world has a great deal of confidence in this barbarous metal, whether one wants to believe it or not, and whether one is able to explain it or not, than in the paper money made by people. The world is gradually beginning to realize now that if we disassociate our money from gold in the Western world, the day might come when Russia and the communistic countries may be the only countries which have a currency based on gold, while the West does not have this; and care must be taken to ensure that the West will in the distant future be able to have a gold system, a monetary system based on gold, so that it will not only be Russia who will have this. The world is beginning to realize that it is the easiest way of heightening liquidity. That is why I maintain that people are now beginning to think to a much greater extent than in the past, of an increase in the gold price as one of the possible means of solving the world’s monetary problems.

In conclusion I want to state that recently a new idea, or an old idea in a new shape, has made its appearance in the monetary sphere. This is the idea that the time has come for a readjustment of currencies in relation to one another. The feeling is that it is time we had a look at all the important currencies and their relations to one another, and that where necessary we will have to make new adjustments of currencies to one another. We welcome that idea. Since Bretton Woods when the parities of the various currencies were determined, a great many devaluations and revaluations of currencies have taken place. However, we have to accept that the relations between various currencies are not always the right ones. I welcome this idea because I believe that when the world begins thinking along the lines of a realignment of currencies, or a readjustment of currencies, people will find that the attempt to place currencies in a new relationship to one another cannot succeed unless it goes hand in hand with a revaluation of gold in relation to all other currencies. That is why we must welcome that line of thought, provided these things are done in the right way. How can they be done? An attempt at revaluing currencies can only take place in certain ways. I will mention the three most important to you. It can take place as a result of a crisis in the monetary world. If there should be a crisis and collapse, and chaos, then of course anything can happen. During such chaotic conditions currencies can perhaps adjust themselves, but in the process, however, the world can suffer great damage. So nobody hopes that readjustment will take place by way of a crisis. The second way is by means of floating rates of exchange. We read these days about floating rates of exchange; we read a lot these days about the idea that currencies should be allowed to move up and down along a broad margin. We do not have much faith in that system. We believe that it will introduce uncertainty into world trade, but it will cause chaos and that it will, not solve these problems. That is why we hope that if there should be a readjustment of currencies which might lead to an increase in the official price of gold, it will take place in this third way, i.e. the way of consultation, of discussion and of mutual agreement reached with one another, and that countries which play a significant part and which have influence in the financial sphere will deal with problems and give consideration to them in a peaceful way with one another and will in that way take the necessary steps towards solving our problems. In that I see a ray of light along this road which will lead to increase in the official gold price.

I want to conclude by expressing my gratitude towards the hon. member for Florida, who had quite a few important things to say about gold here. I also want to express my gratitude to hon. members on the opposite side for the judicious way in which they approached this matter without embarrassing me in any way. I want to say that although I am circumspectly optimistic, and this has to be my attitude, people should not deduce from that that we should allow ourselves to be enticed by that careful optimism on the gold front into the attractions of speculation in properties, shares and what have you. In other words, it should not be deduced that we believe that through an improvement in our gold position it would be remunerative to accumulate riches by means of gambling and speculation. Most of our shares are already overvalued, and the value of most of our gold shares are based on the doubling of the gold price. We must warn our people that whatever happens in future, and whenever it happens, the way in which a nation can become financially strong and healthy is not through speculation on what may happen in future but that the only way a nation can achieve economic strength and soundness is through labour and thrift. Those words which I used three years ago in my Budget, i.e. “work and save”, are still true. Whatever might happen in regard to the gold price—whether or not what we are expecting and hoping for will happen—nothing should be allowed to detract from the determination of our people to assist the gambling spirit and to seek their personal salvation in the prosperity of our country, in their ability to work and to save.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—100: Bodenstein. P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha. S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank S.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward. S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman. F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux. J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer. P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder. C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw. W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—33: Basson. J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Committee Stage of this Bill, the hon. the Deputy Minister who is in charge of the Bill was asked whether the Workmen’s Compensation Act was being excluded from the operations of this measure. His reply was that the Workmen’s Compensation Act would be treated the same way as any pension policy. He said the following—

That is all very well, and that we understood was the intention, but we wish to point out the third party is very much adversely affected by the passage of this Bill—I am talking about the third party to an action for damages. If a workman claims against a third party for negligence, or a widow claims compensation for the death of her breadwinner, the third party would be more prejudiced than he would be in a normal case where a widow or other dependent sues a third party for damages for the death of the breadwinner. Let me give an example.

Let us take the simple case of a widow whose damages in respect of loss of support, apart from any award received under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, amounts to, say, R10,000, and she is to receive a pension under that Act the capitalized value of which is, say, R2,000. In that case in awarding damages to the widow the Court would deduct the sum of R2,000 above and award her the net figure of R8,000. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, in a separate action, will be entitled to recover that amount, the amount of his outlay, being R2,000, and thus the insurer’s total liability would amount to R10,000. If, however, the present Bill is destined to provide that the capitalized value of the pension above is not to be taken into account in assessing the widow’s damages, then, in the first place, she will receive from the insurer the sum of R10,000, and also from the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner the sum of R2,000, making R12,000 in all. The insurer would be called upon to pay R10,000 to the widow, ordered by the Court, but then again, in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he would also be called upon to pay R2,000 to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, thus increasing his liability accordingly.

I wish to refer to an Appellate Division judgment in this connection, that of Bonheim v. South British Insurance Co. Ltd., A.D. 1962 (3) and at p. 266 Judge Ogilvie Thompson said the following—

—and this is what the Act says—

He then quotes the case of Table Bay Stevedores (Pty.) Ltd. v. S.A.R. & H„ 1959 (1) S.A. 386, also an Appellate Division case. He goes on to say:

That is what the judge held in respect of the Act, namely that workmen’s compensation was not to be approximated to insurance moneys, sick fund benefits and the like. While we agree that a workman should be able to obtain compensation, for which he has taken out insurance, I think it is quite wrong that the third party should pay the maximum amount which the court has found him liable for in damages and in addition pay the workmen’s compensation commissioner the amount which the commissioner has paid out for insurance moneys which he has received. I see the Minister is nodding his head. I think the Minister agrees with me. I do not think this is what is intended by this Bill. We raised the matter in the Committee Stage and it is only because of the answer given by the Deputy Minister, in whose hands this Bill is, that I now raise this question at the Third Reading, to show the Minister what the effect would be. I ask the Minister to consider the point I have made and perhaps introduce an amendment in the Other Place so as not to make the third party and the insurer liable to two people without receiving premiums. He is not receiving a premium for his liability to the commissioner. He is only receiving a premium in regard to the damage he has to pay out on behalf of the third party. I think the Minister will agree that it is most unfair to make an insurer or a third party—not necessarily the insurance company—liable in an extra amount, merely because the workmen’s compensation commissioner is involved in the case.

Mr. Speaker, I did not take charge of the measure personally, of course, but in view of what the hon. member has said, it seems to me to be a question that may be considered. Before promising to rectify the position in the Other Place, if this is in fact the position, I would prefer the point made by the hon. member to be considered by the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is in a better position than I am and who has studied the finer points of this particular measure—he did in fact go into this particular matter—and that we discuss the matter again at a later occasion. I think that will be more satisfactory. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

There are one or two remarks which I wish to make at this Third Reading, and which I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to before he takes this Bill to the Other Place.

Firstly, I want to lay emphasis on and ask him to give special consideration to the appointment of the president and vice-president. For the moment I will limit my discussion to the president. I asked the hon. the Minister previously, but unfortunately I was not here during the Committee Stage, to appoint a layman, that is to say a non-medical man, to be chairman of this council. There are various reasons which I could cite. One is that an independent chairman, who is uninfluenced by scientific reasons and is purely a person who is able to weigh evidence, is likely to be a more successful chairman than a professional man who uses his own knowledge to make his judgment, when his own knowledge actually may influence him in the wrong direction. There are many examples of where a layman is made the chairman of a very important project. Probably the most important project that the world has known, was the one known as the Manhattan project. That was when the Americans set out to produce a nuclear bomb. They had to do it as quickly as possible, because Einstein had convinced President Roosevelt that the Germans were already working on the nuclear bomb.

After a great deal of thought, consideration and consultation with his advisers, instead of appointing a physicist or a chemist, as it might have been thought would be wisest, because these were the people most concerned, he appointed an army engineer. When he was asked why he did that, he said he did it because he was convinced that the chairman of this project had to be a man who would get things done. He must not have anything to do with scientific work itself, but had to be someone who would get things done. When Dr. Schonland was sent over to England at the beginning of the Second World War to enter into the project of the development of radar, I heard him giving a lecture and he said: “When we decided to get on with this work we did not search for scientists who could do scientific work, but we took all the zoologists we could find. The zoologists were the men who really did the work, because we were able to start from scratch; they were educated and instructed men and they listened to what was said.” We have, in the C.S.I.R. a chairman of outstanding ability, namely Dr. Meiring Naudé. There is no doubt that he has made a great success of this council. But did we not lose one of the greatest physicists of the world when we took him off his scientific work and made him an administrator?

Lastly, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the catastrophe that could happen if, in choosing these men, the hon. the Minister chose the best doctors he could find. We are fortunate to have a surgeon of world standing among us at the present time. Think what a tragedy for research it would be if this man were taken from his work to-day, as Dr. Meiring Naudé was, and given an appointment as, for instance, the president of this council. The constitution of this council is not difficult, except as regards this particular key position and it has been found in at least one overseas medical research council which has produced great results, that a lawyer or an accountant or an ex-Judge made excellent chairmen for this council. I also want to refer to the form of voting. The form of voting which is proposed in this Bill is not suitable, to my mind. It is, perhaps, suitable in a council consisting of 30 or 40 members where you want to keep the attention of people and you want, if they do not vote, to make them realize that by not voting they are voting against. This is a small council of men, however, who are called together to make decisions, and recommendations; in other words, to make up their minds. In a council of this nature the ability to vote against by merely abstaining is disastrous. Each man in a council of this kind should make up his mind and vote “aye” or “nay”. By this system it is possible merely by abstaining from voting to accept no responsibility and in so doing to vote against. This is not the type of council, as I see it. I hope the hon. the Minister will give these remarks some consideration before he takes the Bill to the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the hon. member unfortunately did not have the opportunity of being present during the Committee Stage. I am grateful to the hon. member for having said that I should consider the matters raised by him. I am glad he phrased it like that, particularly with regard to the president and the vice-president of this council. I should like to tell the hon. member that I have already given the matter some thought and have again consulted others in this regard. I want to remind the hon. member that this Bill is the outcome of a great deal of consideration which has been given to this matter by the C.S.I.R. and its Medical Committee as well as the Scientific Advisory Council and other bodies and persons. I again raised this specific matter with them after the hon. member had made his speech during the Second Reading of the Bill. At that time I was strongly urged to retain this provision in the Bill in its present form. This is the first point I want to make. The second arises from the statement of the hon. member, i.e. “If this gentleman is a medical man his own knowledge might influence him in the wrong direction”.

†That may be so, but we must be very careful that his lack of knowledge does not influence him in the wrong direction. The third point I would like to make is the example the hon. member quoted in regard to the atomic bomb project. I can quite see that an engineer was appointed there and not a physicist or a biologist. After all, that was a project, whereas this is a purely scientific research council not undertaking a specific project where results must be produced within a limited space of time, but it will deal with different matters going on at the same time over many years. The fourth point I would like to mention is that the present position in the C.S.I.R. has created a need for a medical research council, because one of the difficulties was that, although there was a medical committee of the C.S.I.R., the final say rested with the C.S.I.R. Council. One of the difficulties mentioned in the papers before me advising the establishment of a medical research council, is the fact that on this C.S.I.R. Board there were too few or no medical men.

*The fifth point mentioned by the hon. member was that it would be a tragedy if we were to take one of our surgeons who had attained world standing from the great task he was performing at present and appoint him to this council. However, this also holds true for any other profession because this person will in any event have to be of such outstanding ability that if one were to take him from the legal profession, or from any other profession, it would be a loss to that particular profession, just as it would be an indirect loss to the medical profession. I want to tell the hon. member that after having given the matter much serious consideration I feel that this should remain as it is, and that there will be the greatest confidence in this council if it was laid down that such a person must have a good grounding in the science for which the council has been established.

Is it the intention to include dentists?

Yes, that is the intention. Dentistry is also mentioned in the Bill before us. As far as the form of voting is concerned, this was taken from the C.S.I.R. legislation, and I can only say that there it has worked well. I see no reason why in this particular case we must make use of a different form for the execution of the functions of this council. For those reasons I do hope that the hon. member will let the Bill through as it stands. In regard to the question of voting, I will certainly look into the matter again.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

When the Committee reported progress, I was replying to a question which had been put to me by the hon. member for Durban (North). It concerned the question of wholesalers. I want to explain that all wholesale liquor licences issued since 1965 have been made subject to the condition that the wholesaler shall not deal with the public but with the trade itself. There have been certain misgivings as to whether this was quite in order. In view of the machinery created under the Liquor Act of 1963, the classification of hotels and the large number of new distribution points which came into existence, it has been felt that it would be undesirable to create further distribution points for the public by allowing wholesalers to trade with the public, except in exceptional circumstances. The provision we want to make here is that wholesalers, whose licences were granted after 1st January, 1965, shall not deal with the public unless they have been specially authorized to do so by the Minister on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board. This may be done in special circumstances. In order to make this completely water-tight, we also want, for the same reasons, to prohibit wholesalers whose licences were granted before that date and who did not deal with the public in the past, from dealing with the public in future, as this is a right which they have never exercised and consequently they will not be losing anything. Those who did in fact deal with the public in the past will make a sworn statement to that effect and they will be permitted to deal with the public. As I have explained, the whole premise is to prevent the creation of additional distribution points, over and above those which were in existence, or which were established with the classification of hotels.

Sir, we are indebted to the hon. the Minister for his explanation. He mentioned 1965 as the dividing line in determining which wholesalers should be allowed to trade with the public. Sir, I wonder whether there is any need really to have this restriction at all: whether there is any need to tighten up this provision at all, as is suggested. If there is a tightening up or a curtailing of the rights of wholesalers to sell to the public, for whose benefit is it being done? I think in all categories of trade in this country we look at the interests of the producer and we look at the interests of the consumer, and I can see no benefit to the producer in this proposed restriction of sales direct to the consumer, and I can certainly see no benefit for the consumer in this restriction. At the present moment the wine industry is doing its best to promote the sale of wine, and the consumption of wine at home as a normal way of life in South Africa. That is as it should be, with the very excellent wines that are being produced. One can visualize circumstances where a wholesaler is not readily accessible to a family, and the compulsory introduction of the middle man, accompanied by an increase in the price to the consumer, will cut right across the present system, with certainly no additional benefit to the producer, and I wonder whether this is really justified. The hon. the Minister has made mention of the obligations of classification, grading and so on. But one already knows that there is a considerable mark-up when it comes to on-consumption of wine. After all those are the people who are using the hotel facilities and the mark-up is there because they are consuming liquor on the hotel premises.

This refers to off-consumption.

Yes, I realize that. I am mentioning the fact that in the case of on-consumption, where the benefit accrues to the hotel or restaurant proprietor, there is a considerable mark-up on the wholesale price of wine. One regards that as justifiable because there are breakages; there is additional service. Additional facilities and amenities are provided. But why must there be a compulsory middle man in the case of off-consumption where a man desires to take his liquor or his wine to his home? In fact I shudder to think what the cost will be of some of these pleasant evenings when one is home if there is no means of securing these beverages through a wholesale medium. One finds that the man who buys in bits and pieces from the retail trade is paying a very much higher price, at least in the Cape Town municipal area and in the environs of Cape Town, than he would have to pay for the same commodity if he buys from a wholesaler on the cash-and-carry basis. Sir, there is another aspect. Most wholesalers who deal with the public have gone on to the cash-and-carry basis, with the result that no debts are being incurred. The buyer must pay cash for his liquor, and he gets the benefit of the cash price from the wholesaler. In spite of what the hon. the Minister has said so far, with all respect to him. I can find no justification for the curtailment of this facility to the consumer.

Sir, I do not want to cross swords with my friend and colleague who has just spoken, but there are other aspects of the problem which the hon. the Minister will no doubt deal with when he replies. There is, for instance, the question of supplying not to a genuine consumer but to a shebeener. That is one of the problems. I think it is also a question of vested interests; of people who are so hide-bound by regulation and by rule that the Minister feels that he has to compensate them in some way for the stranglehold on normal trade and that he therefore has to protect them to a certain extent. However, I want to raise two other matters which flow from this clause. The first is a minor one and that is the question of sales to the staff by a wholesale liquor firm. Technically, in terms of this provision, it would appear that wholesalers would not be able to supply their own staff members, which is the usual practice in any business. Whether it be a liquor business or any other business, there are usually special privileges for the staff to buy at cost price. I should like the hon. the Minister to clear that point.

The other point is this. The hon. the Minister says he is closing loopholes, but has he perhaps considered the request made to him on numerous occasions to limit the two gallons which may be sold, to one type of liquor? That tends to make it a much more genuine wholesaling of liquor than selling a mixed lot of two gallons, of which six bottles must be the same. If you are wholesaling, then you should sell in wholesale quantities. If you limit sales to two gallons of the same type, then you will make it more genuine wholesaling than it is at the moment. Those are the two points that I wanted to raise and I await the Minister’s reply with interest.

Sir, I rise to support the hon. member for Green Point. We have an Act to control the sale of liquor in order to avoid drunkenness, but I think this clause goes beyond that. I do not think it was ever intended that the Minister should control the trade or the profits derived therefrom. I think that is wrong. The Government has always advocated the principle of free trade, and I think that this clause cuts across that principle. Sir, while we have people who drink there is nothing that is of greater help to the householder or the small man than this facility to purchase his liquor in wholesale quantities. He is now going to be deprived of that privilege to a certain degree. However, while the Minister is imposing restrictions on the one hand, on the other he is giving farmers a free hand. I can drive up to a farm, the owner of which has no liquor licence, and I can purchase my liquor supply from him, provided, of course, that he produces the liquor on his farm. On the one hand the hon. the Minister relaxes the restrictions and on the other hand he tightens them up. Clause 23 introduces restrictions against the trade and I do not think that that was ever the intention of the Act. It was not intended that the Government should control profits as such. The Government’s policy all along the line has been free trade. One of the biggest liquid commodities sold in this country is petrol, for instance, and in that case the Government has said that there must be no control. If you read the report of the commission which was appointed under the Licensing Act, you will find that the tendency is to lift all controls, and here the Minister is introducing controls in respect of one section of trade.

Sir, I do not agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) on the question of shebeens. You will always have shebeens. I think it is wrong for us to start interfering with the profit margin of the wholesalers. I think the Minister should keep out of that. I personally feel that the lid should be taken off completely as far as the Liquor Act is concerned; that there should be no restrictions. I think these restrictions are foolish. If we are going to allow liquor to be sold, we should allow it to be sold openly. But while we have these restrictions. I do not think that the Government should interfere with the profit margins of the wholesalers or the retailers. That is a matter for domestic control by the trade itself.

Sir, may I raise one more point before the hon. the Minister replies? Under subsection (2) (a) there is a proviso to the effect that a person may adduce evidence that he has been dealing with the public. There is no limitation placed on that. In other words, if a wholesaler was acting as a normal wholesaler but he had one or two customers to whom he regularly supplied, then that would be evidence that he was supplying the public. If the Minister wants to close the loopholes properly, then I feel there should be some minimum percentage of the sales to the public, say 75 per cent; in other words, it is a normal public wholesaler and not a wholesaler who in the past has not been selling to the public. It would not affect the present public wholesalers. It would affect future firms who may wish to convert to public wholesalers.

I should first like to deal with the point which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has just raised, i.e. to determine what a genuine wholesaler is. We have received representations in this regard. The entire liquor trade are in favour of this amendment, of course, except that they believe the amendment does not go far enough. In actual fact they want us to do what the hon. member for Durban (Point) has just advocated, and the entire liquor trade will naturally be very grateful to the hon. member for Salt River for the plea he delivered here today, which is the very opposite.

To come back to the question of sales to the staff of wholesalers, these exceptions can be made in terms of the conditions of the licence. One can make it one of the conditions that wholesalers may sell to their staff at the usual prices. Consequently there is no difficulty as far as this matter is concerned.

Is it necessary to obtain special permission?

In terms of another clause the Minister may lay down general conditions for all classes of licences, and this should be one of the conditions in the case of wholesale licences.

Do you intend doing so?

Yes, I think we may readily concede this. Then there is the question which was raised by the hon. member for Salt River with regard to the right of the farmer to sell on his farm. This is a right which farmers have always enjoyed. I am not making this concession now; this has been the position throughout the years. All farmers have the right to sell their produce. There are no restrictions on any farmer. Whether a person is a wine farmer or a maize farmer, he may sell his produce and he need not do so through another person. The only object simply is to introduce some order. Wholesalers have to deal with the trade unless there are exceptional circumstances, for example, if someone wants to enter the market with his product and ordinary trade does not want to handle his product. In that case we shall grant him a wholesale licence so that he may enter the market with his product. This is to the advantage of the producers as well as the public. But as a rule, wholesalers ought to deal with the trade and retailers ought to deal with the public. Surely this is what organized marketing is. We are not taking away anything from anybody. A person who had this right in the past, prior to 1965, and who can adduce proof that he has been dealing with the public, may continue doing so. If he has not been dealing with the public, he has never seen any necessity for doing so, and now we are providing that in future the position will be that he has not made use of such a right, if he had it, and that for the sake of order he should not do so in future either. And of course the other people who have not had that right since 1st January, 1965, are not losing anything either. I want to make an honest appeal to hon. members to pass this clause as it stands. I think it is in the general interest for this clause to be placed on the Statute Book in its present form.

The Minister says he does not wish to alter the position of those who traded with the public before 1965, but as time passes and as populations grow, what he is doing is to create a monopoly right in the hands of those persons who had that right in 1965. I concede that for the next five or six years it probably does not make much difference, but I should imagine that it is an unhealthy position when you are restricting the sources of supply to the individual indefinitely, irrespective of the growing demand of individuals desiring to trade.

I am making provision for this. Provision does exist in terms of which the Minister may allow this in future on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, as the occasion arises.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 24:

This clause apparently gives someone with a wine farmer’s licence, the right without a further licence to sell liquor at a place elsewhere than the licensed premises. In other words, he can set up a depot at any other place without a licence and without any difficulty. There was an occasion, for example, in Malmesbury, if my memory serves me correctly, where a wine depot was set up in the town. Now it is proposed that this may be done without any licence at all, and in competition therefore with those who have paid their rather large licence fees and who are selling similar products in that same area. On the face of it, this again seems to give an advantage which, certainly on the face of the Bill and without there being a White Paper to explain the matter, appears to be discriminately against those who have licences and who are subject to the restrictions and difficulties of the Act. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain it.

This is not the case. In the past wine farmers have always had the right to set up wine farmers’ depots with the permission of the magistrate. If a wine farmer could satisfy the magistrate that it was in his interest to set up a wine farmer’s depot and that there was a need for setting up such a depot, he was granted permission to do so, and this still is the position. Here it has been drafted somewhat peculiarly and perhaps this is what has caused confusion in the mind of the hon. member. In view of the fact that we are providing in another clause that a wine farmer may in future operate on his own premises, on his farm, in other words, that he may sell his liquor on those premises under an ordinary authority from the Minister, we are providing here that if he sells at other premises he may only sell at premises authorized by the magistrate. This is a right they have always had in the past.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 25:

This appears to be an innocent clause, but the deletion of the word “major” before “structural alteration” is one which can lead to tremendous difficulty. I wish to plead with the hon. the Minister to leave the word “major” as it now stands in the Act. At present authority must be obtained to make any major structural alterations. In other words, a licensee may make minor structural alterations. As a result of the amendment here proposed, any structural alteration of any sort is prohibited without the permission of the chairman of the National Liquor Board. Firstly, there is no definition of a structural alteration, but there are decided cases. There is no definition in the Act itself. A structural alteration, for instance, would be a mirror being fixed to a wall, or a shelf. The tiniest little alteration or addition which is a fixed fitting is a structural alteration. It seems ridiculous that if a person wants to put up an additional towel-rack or a shelf in a toilet, he has to go running to the chairman of the National Licensing Board. It is understandable that a major alteration should be submitted for approval, or an alteration which will change the nature or character of the premises. But I will give the Minister an example of a recent prosecution. A person had a burglary through a window which was not used and was not necessary for health purposes. So the owner blocked up the window and was prosecuted because he had made a structural alteration. It is ridiculous when you get down to that level.

Now the hon. the Minister’s reply is going to be: Oh, but you only have to go the chairman of the local licensing board. I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s explanation of how easy it is going to be to get authority for a structural alteration. I accept, and I think anybody will accept, that arising from certain abuses where not only major alterations were made but in some cases complete changes to premises were made without permission, it may be necessary to clarify the existing provision, and nobody would object to such a clarification. But the way this is being done will place an impossible burden on licensees. Without arguing the case further, I would ask the Minister at this stage please to reconsider the removal of the word “major” and leave it as the Act reads at present, or alternatively to propose some other amendment which will get at what he wants to get at, namely important changes, but which will not create the ridiculous situation that the slightest change of any sort will be regarded as an offence if permission is not obtained.

In the first place I should like to point out that the expression “major structural alteration” appears in the existing Act. Consequently that expression ought to give the hon. member for Durban (Point) no difficulty at this stage, because it is an old existing concept in the Act. What are we now doing here? We are providing that no structural alterations may be carried out without the permission of the chairman of the licensing board, and if it is a major structural alteration, he has to obtain the permission of the designated police officer. I want to concede that this will be in his discretion to a very large extent; he now has to decide when a structural alteration is such a major one that he has to consult the designated police officer and when it is not. On closer examination, however, the Act in its present form is not clear, because at present it reads as follows—

shall be allowed. Now he has to decide in every case which structural alteration is a major one and, what is more, the licensee has to decide what structural alteration is a major one and what structural alteration is a minor one. This obligation is present all the time. The very best thing to do is to provide that no structural alteration may be carried out without permission, and in this case he simply has to make application. The few things mentioned by the hon. member, such as the removal of a mirror, are trifles, and one cannot pay any attention to them.

But is that a fact?

No, it is a question of the interpretation of the Act; what is a structural alteration and what is not. What one has to take into account is a factual condition.

But there are court rulings in this regard.

It is not for me to say now whether or not it is going to be one. That is why the Act provides “no structural alterations” and a licensee, to be on the safe side, should rather make application to the chairman of the licensing board. If it is a minor alteration, he will give his permission forthwith, and if it is a major structural alteration he may give his permission after the designated police officer has been consulted.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister. In the first place he has said that he is not going to discuss what structural alterations are, but he did not deny that the examples I gave him are in fact structural alterations. In other words, a person may not touch his premises without permission. The hon. the Minister says: “Oh, but it is a small thing, it’s going to be no problem and you get it automatically.” Let me give him a few examples. There was a case where application was made for structural alterations, not major rebuilding, just structural alterations, requested on 2nd December, 1968, which was granted on 30th January, 1969—two months. There was another case where it was applied for on 5th November, 1968, and it was granted on 12th December. That was very quick—three weeks. Another one was applied for on 4th October, and it was granted on 12th November—over a month. Another one was applied for on 22nd July, granted 30th August, and so on. It takes anything from three weeks to two months to get an approval. Now, let me put the situation to the hon. the Minister. These are plans for structural alterations, not for rebuilding. Just assume a person is carrying out a plan; the plan has been approved and envisages putting a door in a specific position. When the builders start knocking into the plaster they find that in that position they have struck a particular structural snag, for instance electrical wires. They cannot even change the plan by six inches without the permission of the chairman of the Licensing Board. That means that all these builders, plasterers and electricians are going to sit down and twiddle their thumbs for a period ranging from three weeks to two months, awaiting permission to move the door six inches. That is what this provision results in. The Minister laughs. It sounds ridiculous, but it is not me who is being ridiculous, it is the law that is being ridiculous. Some provision should be made. The hon. the Minister said that it is quite easy to simply ask for a change. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example. One liquor licensing area covers—I have picked one in Natal: Eshowe, Nkandla, lower Umfolozi, Mtunzini, Hlabisa, Mahlabatini, Entonjaneni, Nongoma and Babanango. All the people from the abovementioned places have to go to the chairman in Eshowe. Does the hon. the Minister know how far it is from those far outflung areas to Eshowe? If a person wants to put up an extra glass shelf in his toilet, he has to go all the way from say, Entonjaneni, to Eshowe to get permission. I plead with the hon. the Minister not to look at this in the light of what he is being told, but in the light of the fact of what he is doing. He is imposing, unnecessarily, a burden for which there is no need. Nearer home, for instance, you have Worcester, Tulbagh, Ceres, Montagu, Robertson and Swellendam; all those who want permission have to go to Worcester in order to get any alteration approved. I want to ask the hon. members for Swellendam and the other areas, whether they like the proposed procedure, that when somebody wants to put up a toilet fitting, he has to go all the way to Worcester to get the permission of the chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board of that area. The Minister might say that I am being ridiculous now, but later on we are going to come to clauses where he lays down a minimum penalty for certain offences. There is another clause which provides that in certain cases, not only for selling illicit liquor, but for any offence under the Liquor Act, a person can be debarred from holding a licence. With the clauses which are to follow, we are now creating an offence as a result of which a person could lose his licence if he had committed previous offences, because he will be committing an offence by doing the slightest alteration or improvement to his premises. I plead with the hon. the Minister, that if he is determined that his empire must control right down to the last screw of the last toilet paper holder and the last glass shelf in the last bathroom, if he must control every one of these tiny little details, keep control over everything, that there be provision for a post facto application. Let a person be allowed to make an alteration and then to submit it if it is a minor one. But as he is now doing it, namely placing a complete prohibition upon a licence-holder, is to my mind absolutely ridiculous. I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have just ascertained from the chairman of the National Liquor Board that under the existing state of affairs people find themselves in an awkward position because they do not know whether a structural alteration is a major or minor one. At present they make application in respect of every alteration in any case.

Who requested this?

As far as I know this comes from the Department. If the hon. member will give me an opportunity to do so, I shall ascertain what representations I have received in this regard, i.e. if he wants to keep this debate going. No, it would appear that the organized liquor trade does not support this clause. That is correct. The organized liquor trade is not completely in favour of this clause.

They are criticizing the present procedure.

Yes, they may be criticizing the present procedure. At the moment they find themselves in the difficult position of having to decide what is a major structural alteration or what is a minor structural alteration. And they do it at their risk. This is the difficulty they find themselves in at the present moment. This is the difficulty of the people in the trade at the moment, i.e. they have to decide whether or not they are contravening the Act. In future they will know that no structural alteration may be made. Now the onus rests on the chairman of the National Liquor Board to decide when a structural alteration is a major one and when the permission and advice of the designated police officer has to be obtained.

So a man may have to travel 200 miles to ask if he can put up a toilet paper holder.

The hon. member should not turn this into something ridiculous. These are structural alterations and not additions.

The court ruling reads “any fixed installations to a building …”

The hon. member is turning this into something ridiculous.

Clause put and agreed to (Messrs. M. L. Mitchell and W. V. Raw dissenting).

Clause 28:

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister indicate whether other fermented beverages are the beverages referred to earlier in the Bill, that is to say beverages fermented from fruit other than grapes on the farm itself. Does the hon. the Minister not think he ought to have a definition of other fermented beverages put in the Act when this Bill goes to the Other Place?

It appears in the Act.

Mr. Chairman. I do not know if the hon. the Minister realizes that whisky, for instance, is a fermented beverage, because, like beer, it is made from a type of malt. Would the Minister therefore classify it as a malt and would it come under this clause?

No, it does not come under this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr. Chairman, I object to this clause, as I would have objected to earlier clauses had I been here, which gives to the hon. the Minister complete and total dictatorial powers. The trend throughout this measure, and particularly in this clause, is for the Minister to do anything he likes. I do not know why we have a Liquor Act because it gives no certainty or security for licensees. The Minister can make conditions, he can change conditions, he can amend conditions, he can place restrictions, he can amend restrictions, and from day to day the Minister can change his mind and everybody has to just accept it. In various clauses of this Bill we see this trend towards the creation of a complete dictatorship over all licensees in the liquor trade.

When a person invests money or buys a business he likes to know where he stands. In every other business a person has rules and regulations, he has laws which lay down what he may do, how he may do it, and so on and so forth, but in the liquor trade a person can find from day to day that new rules and new conditions are imposed on him. One day he may be able to do one thing and the next day, at the whim of the Minister—which in fact means at the whim of the National Liquor Board—he cannot, or he must do something else. Here again we have a completely open and unqualified right to make restrictions and lay down conditions. I am prepared to go so far and say this. If the Minister requires such wide and such dictatorial powers then let him confine them to matters affecting the sale of liquor. But he goes far beyond that, he enters the field which should be controlled by the Group Areas Board, he enters into fields which should be controlled by other Departments, by the Hotel Board, by the hon. the Minister of Tourism. Let him confine his control, if he is determined to keep this control, to liquor matters, and not exercise control over matters which are not concerned with the sale or control of liquor. Instead of getting away from red tape we are creating more and more red tape. The Minister will accept that the organized liquor industry and the organized hotel industry are also totally opposed to this clause and they have recorded their objections thereto. It is a matter on which I feel very strongly. We are moving in the wrong direction. Instead of moving towards simplification and stability in the industry, we are moving away from it towards uncertainty and more and more red tape.

A man can take out a licence, he can submit plans, he can put up a building, and a week later the Minister capriciously can say: “Oh. I do not like those plans,” and that after the building has been built, or he can say: “I am not going to allow you to sell to this group,” or “I will not allow you to sell this particular type of liquor,” or “I am going to impose some other restriction on you.” And that after a person has invested his own money in either buying a business or putting up a building. Having done all this, he suddenly finds the Minister coming along and put any new conditions or restrictions as he may deem fit. Moreover, this is in addition to the hundred and one powers the Minister already has. Under classification this sort of thing has already happened. There are powers under classification, and I say they are being used arbitrarily. You have the nonsense that you cannot have a non-white entertainer in a white hotel.

You may call it nonsense, I do not.

Well, there are many country hotels which have a weekly dance, and all they can get is a Coloured orchestra, but the Minister says no, they are not allowed to have them.

Quite rightly too.

I can expect a verkrampte to shout, “heeltemal reg”, but what about the people who cannot enjoy their weekly dance because of this prohibition? In South Africa we have a number of outstanding non-white artistes, and now we are going to put up a wall so that Whites cannot listen to them.

Quite right.

All right, so it suits the verkramptes again—this is all part of the pattern. If the Minister says he thinks this is in order then it shows where he thinks on these matters.

There are also other points. There is the fact that he will not allow an Indian waiter to serve in a ladies’ bar. This, of course, is going to save white civilization, this will preserve the white man’s future, the fact that an Indian cannot serve in the ladies’ bar. But, Sir, he can serve in a lady’s bedroom in an hotel, although he cannot serve in the ladies’ bar. It is all part of this pattern of restrictions and yet more restrictions being placed on the industry. I wish to record my strongest objection to this growing tendency towards more and more control and more and more rights to take powers without Parliament having any say in the matter, in other words, ministerial authority over which Parliament has no control.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the hon. member for Durban (Point). We were told some years ago by the then Minister of Justice that South Africa was having a new pattern of drinking. He said we would see a relaxation as far as bottle-store licences and wine shops were concerned. He also said there would be a relaxation of conditions imposed on restaurants so as to encourage the tourist trade. What in fact is the position? Here in the Cape we have the unsatisfactory position …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is quite out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about the restrictions which the Minister can place on anybody who wants to apply for a licence. I do not know whether I am out of order. I am referring to a restaurant licence holder who is restricted. The way I read this clause the Minister is seeking power with which to impose further restrictions on licensees. He can vary conditions. That is how I read this clause, but I shall abide by your ruling. We find the unsatisfactory position that people go to well-known and large restaurants and they have to do something which is rather undignified, namely carry their own liquor to the establishments. I have been to Pretoria—it is quite a big place—and there one finds converted shops and what have you, all with liquor licences. Why is there the differentiation between the two cities? Why is this restriction applied to such a degree here? If one wishes to take tourists and others from overseas out to entertain them …

What you are mentioning now are all conditions.

The Minister is asking for greater powers, Sir, in this clause.

The clause says the Minister can lay down uniform conditions, and nothing else.

Yes, I realize that that is what the clause says, but the Minister is seeking greater powers to lay down more stringent restrictions. I take it when a person applies for a licence the Minister will have some requirements laid down as to what he expects the applicant to provide.

Uniform conditions.

Unfortunately many of these places look uniform to me, yet one gets a licence and the other does not.

Order! That has nothing to do with an application for a licence; it has to do with conditions under which an application is granted.

That is what I am trying to get at, Mr. Chairman, the type of building, the facilities offered. I cannot understand how you can have identical buildings and facilities in the two cities I mentioned, but the one qualifies and the other does not.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River is wrong. That is not the case. In respect of restaurant licences, off-consumption licences, wholesale licences, bottle licences and temporary licences, everybody will be in the same position. We now have the power to impose conditions, but the position at present is that there is no uniformity. When a licence is granted to an applicant a whole stack of conditions is added. All we are doing here, is to take the power to draft uniform regulations and conditions for particular classes of licences, which will then be published. In this case a person knows that, if he is granted a wholesale licence, he is subject to certain conditions, as published in the Government Gazette. If a bottle licence is issued to a person, that person would also be subject to the conditions as published in the Government Gazette. This is all it means, and nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that that is what it means, but there is no restriction on the type of restriction or condition that the hon. the Minister could impose. The hon. the Minister could, as I read the Bill, say, for example, what kind of liquor should be sold by a certain class of licensee. He could say what class of person should be served by a particular licensee in terms of this clause. He could make it a condition that this class of licensee shall not sell to a specific race or to a specific class of person or he may only sell certain types of liquor to certain types of persons. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that, if in fact he were to impose such a condition, he could kill the very purpose of the existence of any licensee. There is absolutely no restriction at all.

An enormous amount of money is paid for these licences. I think the hon. the Minister should agree that, if a person is conducting his business upon a certain basis, having paid a certain amount of money, which is usually a very large sum, in respect of bottle-store licences, for example, surely he is entitled to know what it is he is allowed to sell and to whom he is going to be allowed to sell it. There are the fundamentals of his business, the fundamentals of his determination as to how much he is going to pay for it and what sort of investment it is going to be. Surely this power must be restricted, so that these conditions may be laid down by the Minister, except for certain matters which are excluded from the power to lay down these conditions. In other words, there are certain conditions the hon. the Minister should not be able to impose in terms of this clause. I hope the hon. the Minister, if the matter is viewed in that light, will appreciate that there should be some restriction on those powers; because the hon. the Minister shook his head when I said “as to what type liquor they may sell”, indicating to me in an innocent way that he did not have that in mind. But the power should not be there. The hon. the Minister’s successor or another board may feel differently from the way the hon. the Minister and the existing board feel at the moment. But these are basic powers so far as the business is concerned. One is dealing here with an industry which has a tremendous vested interest, estimated at something like R300,000,000. These powers really go much further than is necessary for the achievement of the hon. the Minister’s aim.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain once again. The point the hon. member is making now, corresponds to the point originally raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). At the moment we have the power, in terms of clause 71 bis, to impose any condition in classifying a hotel. At the moment those powers already exist.

Everything except to make them love the baby.

Yes, possibly. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that, if there are people who are very sympathetic towards this industry, then it is the National Liquor Board and I. I do not think that they have cause for complaint. There is, therefore, no question of hostility which would result in conditions being altered left, right and centre.

But it happens.

It exists at the moment. What is more, a local liquor board can also, upon renewal, impose additional conditions. Those powers exist at the moment. But our difficulty is that they are not uniform. This clause aims at drafting uniform regulations in respect of the various licences. That is all it seeks to do. The powers we are exercising, are powers we already have. That is all it seeks to do. This is not something out of the ordinary or strange.

Clause put and agreed to (Mr. W. V. Raw dissenting).

Clause 32:

Clauses 32 and 33 both bring in investment corporations; in the one case the Bantu Homelands Investment Corporation and in the other the Coloured Investment Corporation. I will not press the matter at this stage, until I have heard his reply, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to tell us the extent to which he envisages that the Bantu Homelands Investment Corporations, dealt with in clause 32, are now going to become dealers in liquor. When I have heard the hon. the Minister’s reply, I should like to take the matter further.

This is an ordinary authority which is also being granted to them in terms of section 100bis, whereby a licence may be granted to them. That is all it comprises. The National Liquor Board will decide on how many there will be and will make recommendations to me accordingly. More than that I cannot tell the hon. member. In the past they could not exercise that right, nor could the Coloured Corporation; but now we are also authorizing them to claim that right for themselves. The extent to which that will happen, is a question in regard to which the National Liquor Board will make recommendations to me. I shall decide about it.

Mr. Chairman, we have the position where associations of not more than 20 people can obtain certain authorities. Here we are getting nothing more than socialism in liquor selling. In other words, in terms of this clause the State is now starting to become a liquor dealer, because these corporations are State corporations. At this stage they are still our State corporations under the control of the Government. They are now starting, and this is to make provision for them, to enter the field of private enterprise, to become sellers of liquor, in this case, to the Bantu. Is it now the intention of the Government that we are going to socialize our liquor sales in the various race areas, because that is the pattern developing here, or is this to be a temporary transitionary period whereby they will buy out liquor undertakings with the object of handing them over to the Bantu later in the same way as the Bantu Investment Corporation buys trading stores and then puts the original owner back as a manager? This opens up a complete new vista in the take-over process of the Bantu homelands. In other words, the State is now coming in to trade. We are interested in whether they are going to open up new undertakings or whether they are going to take over existing undertakings, and give authority for them, or what the position is. Because this to me appears to be a socialistic tendency of the State to enter into private trading.

Mr. Chairman, the position at the moment is that there is only one person, namely the black man himself who can in terms of section 100bis, obtain a licence in the Bantu homelands. Nobody else can obtain it. In this regard we are referring to Bantu homelands only. Now, the position is that we do not always have enough of these people. Upon the recommendation of my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development I felt that the Bantu Development Corporation should also be brought in so as to start undertakings and run them, I cannot say to what extent. However, they must also be enabled to obtain authority in terms of section 100bis of the principal Act. This is the case as far as the Bantu are concerned. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, this matter is being handled by the Coloured Development Corporation. The underlying idea is that what the Bantu Development Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation acquire by way of profits should be ploughed back for the benefit of these people, whereas the individual licensee does, of course, keep the profit to himself. This does not mean that individual licensees will be excluded and that only the Bantu Development Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation will be in the field. However, they are being enabled to enjoy the same privileges there.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal with the aspect regarding the Coloured Development Corporation, upon which I have expressed my views, but with this question of non-South African residents who are shareholders in an authority. Firstly, I would ask the hon. the Minister to indicate what the reason is for having to have nearly two full pages in our legislation dealing with the matter of a person who owns shares in an authority and leaves the country; secondly, to indicate what he regards as a sufficient period of absence for a person to be regarded as no longer resident in the country. Thirdly, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister how many instances have occurred which lead to our law, which is already over-long and over-complicated, having to be extended by this amount. Finally, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain why it should be that a person who does own shares has absolutely no rights at all. Whenever there is any dispute the rights are in the hands of the people selling shares or the people left behind. In other words, the dice are loaded completely. His colleagues or his co-partners can do virtually what they like and a person has no redress at all. I ask the hon. the Minister to explain the situation.

Mr. Chairman, the fundamental premise is that section 100sex of the principal Act, which is being amended here, provides that these shares be given to groups of Coloureds resident in this country. When a person leaves the country permanently, there is no reason why he should hold those shares any longer. He can sell them and he is not being forbidden to do so. However, when he leaves the country permanently, he is no longer a South African, and why should we place him in this privileged position by allowing him to hold on to his shares? It must be borne in mind that these people do extremely well for themselves. However, when such a person wants to leave the country, i.e. no longer wants to live here, but still derives benefit from privileges created for a certain population group, it is not fair. With a view to this it is being provided that, if a person leaves the country permanently, he should sell his shares at an equitable price, determined by a chartered accountant, to another person of his race group. These shares may be sold to any other person of his group and not necessarily to another shareholder. This provision sounds very reasonable to me, and, what is more, the hon. member must remember that these people are getting all of this free of charge. There is no competition as is found in the case of an ordinary bottle store which has to worry about a quota. These people apply and get them for nothing. When a person gets something like that for nothing and does not want to use it in this country, but goes away, it seems reasonable to me to tell him that he should sell them. As regards the question of the period for which a person has to be absent, I must admit that it is difficult to determine when a person has left the country permanently.

Are there cases where this has happened already?

Yes, I think there have been cases of people who have left the country. However, I think this is a very reasonable provision, and I want to ask the hon. member not to insist on a change.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for the deletion of the word “housekeeper” from the group of persons who may be in the restricted portion of the premises. The original paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of section 102 of the Principal Act reads as follows—

This paragraph was put in for a very good reason, originally, namely to assist the small hotels where you possibly had a proprietor, his wife and a housekeeper, who were the total white staff. I accept that it was abused at certain hotels who used this to anticipate the half-way concession towards barmaids which the hon. the Minister is giving. It is a limited concession towards them and I think it can go very much further. Now that he is granting the half-way step, he is removing the housekeeper as one of those who can go into the restricted portion of the premises. With the concession he is granting, allowing barmaids in certain specified bars, I do not think that he will find that this will be abused any more. If he is determined however that the term “housekeeper” should come out, I would like him to replace it with the term “manageress” because there are many hotels which do not have a manager, but a manageress. The inclusion of the words in this clause: “the wife of a manager” clearly makes that a male occupation; so if the manager is a female she would not be the wife of the manager. She would be a manageress, and that, at least, cannot be abused.

A manageress could then be a barmaid?

No, it could not be abused, because you can have a number of housekeepers, but not a number of manageresses. You can only have one manager or one manageress. It does not seem as if that can be abused, but there are cases, possibly quite a number of cases, where there was a manageress instead of a manager. Now, if the licensee or the wife of the manager can go in, it seems logical that if the manager is a woman she should go in. After all, if there is a manager his wife can go in, but if the manager is a woman she cannot go in. This seems to be just a part of the nonsense, of things that just do not fit and do not make sense. It does not make sense that if a man is a manager his wife can go in, but if his wife happened to be a manageress then she cannot go in. I want to ask the Minister, if he is determined to take out the term “housekeeper”, to provide for the small hotel with a staff of two or three people by putting in that term “manageress”. If necessary he can have her registered, or whatever he likes, as part of the selection system he is going to use under the later clauses. This is a genuine matter and I ask the Minister to consider it.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the abuses that took place under the existing legislation in respect of housekeepers, were far more common than he was perhaps aware. Consequently I hope that he will not take it amiss of me if the licensee is now being deprived of this privilege. I shall consider the other point he mentioned, but at first sight it would appear to me as though precisely the same thing would arise there, i.e. that people would be appointed as manageresses in name only. If she is the licensee, then everything is in order: in that case I would have no objection and she would then have that right. But what is in actual fact a manageress of a hotel who is not a licensee?

She looks after the domestic side.

She does what the housekeeper would have done formerly, and that is the difficulty. We are faced with exactly the same difficulty as we were in the case of housekeepers. I have been very accommodating to the industry with this provision, to which we shall come later on, in regard to ladies in bars. I think the hon. member should rather give way as far as this point is concerned. This system lent itself to abuses, and I am afraid that the proposal made by the hon. member will also lend itself to abuses.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 36:

This clause deals with certain rights which the Minister may grant to the holder of a club liquor licence or a restaurant liquor licence, namely, to permit women and barmaids to be in clubs and restaurants. I should like to ask him to consider adding bar or wine and malt establishments to the group which may enjoy these privileges, which the Minister may grant at his discretion. He need not grant these privileges to establishments which he does not consider to be suitable, Sir, there are some very fine establishments which operate under a bar licence or under a wine and malt licence. If a restaurant is entitled to these privileges, it seems only fair that a bar or a wine and malt licensee operating a decent establishment should also have this privilege.

I have received a similar request from Fedhasa, which unfortunately, reached me at a very late stage. This is not a matter which I can simply decide upon across the floor of this House. It is something I will have to go into first. I promise the hon. member that we will go into his proposal to see whether his request cannot be granted at a later stage. I cannot do it right now; the request reached me at too late a stage for me to be able to consider it properly.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 38:

Here again the Minister is taking additional powers. It is the same old story and I will not repeat the objections in principle. In terms of this clause he can call for records and information. He can require “such holder or licensee to keep such additional records as may be specified in such notice of all liquor sold or disposed of by him during the period so specified”. There are already all sorts of records to be kept and there are all sorts of controls, and I should like the hon. the Minister to explain why he requires this, and if the answer is that it is to prevent abuses by suspected persons, then I want to ask him whether he should not incorporate in the clause that he may use this power where there is a suspicion of abuse so as to limit it to certain cases.

The hon. member is right. Abuse is taking place in this respect as well. This concerns the question of the selling of more than two gallons of liquor through a method of splitting the sale. The sale is simply split among several counter assistants. This is what happened in the past. The client buys ten bottles of liquor from one of the assistants; he buys ten bottles of liquor from another assistant and he buys ten bottles of liquor from a third assistant and none of them keep a record of the sale. The police know about this but the person who indulges in this practice does not contravene the law at present. We do not want to lay the burden of keeping more records on the entire trade. However, when a case of this nature is brought to our notice, the Minister will have the power to compel the licensee by notice to keep the necessary records.

I do not want to suggest that I am suspicious of either the hon. the Minister or his successor, but these are wide powers. I accept that the powers he is asking for are fair and essential but these powers may very well be used to require all bottle stores to keep all kinds of records. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider putting this matter beyond doubt in the Other Place by laying down that he may act in this way in cases where there is reason to believe that a licence is being abused, so that we will not have the position in future where a recommendation is laid before him by the National Liquor Board to the effect that all bottle-stores have to keep an additional ten records. This would mean additional work; additional offices would be required; additional officials would be required for the processing of that information, and it may not even be necessary for the purpose of the police. I, therefore, ask the hon. the Minister whether he would confine this power to cases where there is reason to believe that abuse is taking place.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that what he anticipates simply cannot happen. He should bear in mind the number of licensees there are under sections 71bis and 64. If the National Liquor Board asks that fresh restrictions be imposed, the Minister will sign all the notices to licensees himself. I will have to sign a few thousand notices. In that case I would rather ask Parliament for the necessary powers. However, I do not think it will be necessary; after all, these powers will only be exercised in cases where abuse is definitely taking place.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 40:

This gives the Minister two more powers, firstly, to restrict the supply of liquor contained in bottles or other receptacles; in other words, it deals with receptacles, and the other deals with labelling. I want to refer in particular to the question of labelling. I do not know if the hon. the Minister realizes just what a few simple words like this mean in practice. The implication here is that he is going to insist on labelling in the case of off-consumption premises.

In particular cases.

Or generally.

It can be done generally. It deals with different classes of off-consumption or different areas. In other words, the intention is that labelling shall be re-introduced.

May be reintroduced.

Yes, labelling may be reintroduced. I put it to the hon. the Minister that for nearly a year labelling has not been compulsory, and I put it to him that in fact it has made no difference to the problems of the police in regard to shebeens. I would ask him whether he has had reports from those areas, which have not had labelling, to the effect that it has in any way hampered the police or that it would assist the police to trace crime if labelling is re-introduced. Obviously—and I am sure the hon. the Minister must recognize this—the shebeener is going to take the label off before he shebeens the liquor. He is not going to re-sell liquor with a bottle-store label on; he is going to take the label off. It is elementary; even the simplest criminal would think of that. All you are going to do therefore is that you are going to make the bottle-store stick on the tag and the shebeeners are then going to take it off again. This job of sticking on a tag for the shebeener to take off sounds very little, but I have done a little calculation to see what it involves. There is one individual firm in South Africa which it is estimated sells something like 88 million bottles of liquor a year for off-consumption. The estimated total number sold by them is over 100 million. That is estimated to be about a quarter of the consumption of the country. Let us assume that it takes ten seconds to label a bottle. By the time you have been sticking labels on all day, you will be lucky if you can label a bottle in ten seconds, taking it out of the case, labelling it and putting it back again. At ten seconds a bottle and at R15 wages per week, it would cost R75,000 to label the products of one supplier. To label the products of the whole country would cost some R300,000, just for the labour. Then you come to the label itself and that will be an extra R32,000 for the one supplier or roughly R1 million for all suppliers, which means that it is going to cost R1,300,000 to label all the liquor sold in South Africa, and that is putting it at the absolute minimum and assuming that the labelling goes on for eight hours a day at the rate of ten seconds per bottle. This will obviously have to be paid for by the consumer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is worth taxing the consumer to the tune of R1,300,000 or possibly even R1,500,000 simply in order to have a label on the bottle for a shebeener to take off again? I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the entire deletion of this power to demand labelling, because I am quite sure that he must agree that it cannot serve the purpose of helping to trace illicit sales.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Point) has made all the points that I wished to make on labelling, but I do wish to make a plea for the abolition of the murder of the English language. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section reads—

The Afrikaans text reads—

Surely, Sir, the correct term is “methods of labelling”; otherwise it means that the manner in which you put it on can be prescribed rather than the method of labelling.

Do you lick it or spit on it?

Quite.

That would be bad manners.

I merely ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that this is a terrible way of putting it.

If he will agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban (Point), then he can do away with that altogether.

Yes, quite. I want to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Durban (Point) as to the abolition of labelling, because what is the point? In the days when Natives could not buy liquor it might have been an easy manner in which to trace the source of supply, but then again in those days when anybody bought liquor from a bottle-store, his name and address had to be entered in a book. That does not exist any more, and I think the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point), is made even more valid by this particular fact. Sir, what after all is a label? It is as easy to put on as it is to take off. Does the hon. the Minister mean that he wants “different manners” for the labelling of bottles? He might wish the label to be put on with one of these new glues—I cannot think of the name—which is supposed to stick permanently.

Then they cannot re-use the bottle

In that case, as my hon. friend says, the bottle cannot be used again. I hope the Minister agrees that “different manners” is not the English translation of “verskillende wyses”.

I credit the Minister with a certain elementary commonsense, and surely if we are going to have the labelling of bottles in this manner or by this method, whichever word he prefers, it is going to involve hand labour at a time when we are trying to get increased productivity and to conserve our manpower; because it certainly cannot be done by machine. In order to acquire such a machine one would have to have a certain volume of work, and the ordinary bottle-store owner will just get a labourer to do nothing else but stick labels on bottles. Surely we have got beyond that. In the whole of the bottling trade to-day everything is done by machine in the factory, but here it will involve hand labour of the most primitive kind at a time when we are trying to conserve labour. It does not seem sensible to do that.

No provision for labelling has ever been made in all these years in the Liquor Act itself. Provision was made under the other act, the Wine and Spirits Act, and last year it was felt it was necessary that provision should be made in the Liquor Act to introduce labelling whenever it becomes necessary, and I underline “whenever it becomes necessary”. Neither is it the intention to introduce labelling everywhere, but it may be necessary to do so in specific areas. The police strongly insist on this. The hon. member must not get the impression now—and this covers the point made by the hon. member Durban (North) as well—that since the Blacks can obtain liquor freely, the smuggling of liquor has stopped. The amount of smuggling taking place nowadays, is as much, if not more, as it was in the past and when this happens it is essential that we know where the liquor comes from. The liquor may be on a truck; it does not necessarily mean that one has to get it from the shebeen. It is not the intention to re-introduce labelling generally, but we should like to have the power—at the request of the police—to check the illegal trading of liquor and to be able to demand the labelling of bottles in certain cases. That is all we are asking for here. There is a difference of opinion in the liquor trade as far as this matter is concerned. The Witwatersrand Bottle Store Association has no objection to it at all, but Fedhasa, the Western Province Bottle-store Keepers and the Off-Sales Licensees Association have objections against this. They regard the proposed amendment as unnecessary and ask that it be omitted. They do not feel strongly about this, but they merely say they think it is unnecessary. However, we are inserting this at the request of the police. This is merely an empowering provision that it may be introduced in certain areas when circumstances necessitate it.

As regards the word “manners” as opposed to “wyses”, I am, of course, not responsible for the wording; this is something which the legal advisers and the Parliamentary legislator control. [Interjections.] Possibly the translators had something to do with it; it all depends whether the original text was drafted in English or in Afrikaans. However, I think one can say “different manners”, as well as “different methods”.

No.

I am not well up in languages and neither am I responsible for it; but I will have the matter investigated and I shall be glad to change this if there is a special reason to do so.

Despite the Minister’s good manners as opposed to good methods, I still object to this clause. It is another of those where the Minister says: I am not going to use it; I just want the power because I may want to use it in a certain area. But by the time we have finished there are so many powers as to create a complete stranglehold on the normal processes of trade. It is adding more and more. The Minister keeps on saying in reply to all these objections: I recognize your objection, but I want this power. But he is not going to sit there for ever, and in any case the Minister cannot himself take all these decisions. He must be advised on it, and it is all part of this build-up of regulation and rule and red tape. So, I ask that my objection be recorded to this clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Mr. W. V. Raw dissenting).

Clause 41:

I am sure the Minister did not expect to get past this one without some discussion. This is the clause which deals with these concoctions. I know very little about them. In fact, I cannot pronounce some of them, but the hon. member for South Coast can pronounce them and I think it would help this Committee if he tells us what some of them mean.

There are two drinks one comes up against all the time in the courts in Durban. The one is shimiaan and the other is gavini. Now gavini is being taken away together with the other two which will be pronounced for the Committee by someone else. Why is gavini being taken away? Gavini is, certainly in the courts in Durban, a very well-known concoction. When one speaks of gavini one knows what one is dealing with. Then it goes on to say that if any concoction, although called by another name, is similar or substantially similar to any of the concoctions named in (a) … So, when it is called something else, does one take judicial cognizance that this unpronounceable drink is in fact the same as barberton, or does the fact that barberton appears in this Bill mean that if it is called barberton it is in fact the same as any other concoction? I do not know what barberton is, or whether it is made from daisies or not, but this seems to me to be an odd amendment, an odd substitution and an odd deletion which requires some explanation to a layman like myself.

I do not usually participate in debates on a Bill of this kind, but in this clause we are coming to a matter which is of very great importance to the Bantu, particularly that class of people who can now get white man’s liquor but in the past had to rely upon concoctions prepared for them by shimiaan queens. But I want to pursue the line raised by the hon. member for Durban (North), and that is to ask why “gavini, maconsana or cwayicwayi” are being deleted from this clause. I hope the Minister will tell us what are the components of cwayicwayi which made him decide that it should be eliminated from the Bill. I think that before we agree that it should be eliminated, we should know what the ingredients are, and if possible the Minister should tell us how it is prepared. Under (b) it says that “any concoction which, though called by another name, is similar or substantially similar to any of the concoctions named in paragraph (a)”. Now I want to come to those names in (a), but amongst those which are now to be deleted are these three. I can assure the Minister that whether you call them by the names by which they are called here or not, they ought not to be deleted. Why does the Minister include qediviki? I should like him to tell us how that is made. Why does he bring that in? Does he know what qediviki is? It is no good the Minister shaking his head. How can he pass a Bill without knowing what he is talking about?

Qediviki has always been in the Act.

And what about its relationship to the three that the Minister is cutting out? Will he tell us about cwayicwayi? What is the difference between that and qediviki?

Although I know very little about these things, gavini, maconsana and cwayicwayi are all distillates of those mentioned previously here, i.e. hopana, qediviki and that sort of thing, and we are not excluding them. We are making provision under (d) for them, for distillates of any of the above-mentioned.

Why do you take them out at all?

It is only a reformulation and a modernization. Nothing is being excluded.

Does the Minister say that skokiaan or qediviki or hopana or barberton are not produced by distillation?

No, they are not.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 42:

This clause now provides that before liquor can be supplied, distributed or delivered, it must first be ordered and an invoice must be made out in a prescribed form. It is the prescribed form I want to talk about, because different people use different forms of accounting to-day. Big organizations may be completely mechanized, and the smaller bottle store may be partially mechanized, and another bottle store may have its accounts written by hand. I am not questioning the information which must be contained in this prescribed form as long as it is not a form of specific dimensions, or with a specific order, for the information required, so that it cannot be used in different forms of accountancy. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance on that.

This amendment is in fact a concession to the industry, and at their request I promised to do something. At the moment they have to open a day book and enter sales in it, and then they have to make out an invoice which has to be sent out and then they still retain a duplicate invoice, but that is entered in the day book as well. Now we are doing away with the day book if they supply us with the correct information we require in the invoice. The regulations still have to be made and they will prescribe what the invoice should contain. We shall not make it impossible for them, because we are in fact trying to simplify the position for them.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 43:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes what a job he is putting on the Police by this clause. I accept that this is a change in wording, a cleaning up of the wording of the clause, but it imposes an obligation on the Police to report any contravention of any condition imposed by the hon. the Minister or by the National Liquor Licensing Board or a local licensing board. I draw this to the hon. the Minister’s attention because this afternoon we have been making more and more provision for conditions. In terms, for instance, of the structural alteration, in terms of the conditions laid down for classification you are going to have, if this clause is applied, the Police doing nothing but reporting contraventions.

You are always overstating.

No, I am not overstating. We are passing a law and when I say what that law means, the hon. the Minister says that I am overstating. In other words, is he making a law that is not going to be carried out? Is he making a law which he does not expect to be implemented? Is he saying that I am overstating when I am stating the facts because he does not in fact expect the Police to carry out what this clause tells them to carry out? That is the implication of the hon. the Minister’s interjection. If he has another answer, I will resume my seat and listen to him.

I said the hon. member was always overstating and that he ruined his own case by doing so. The hon. member said that all that the Police would do in future would be to report liquor contraventions. Therefore they will have no time left for other work. I then said that the hon. member was overstating. Of course it is important that any contravention or failure to comply should be brought to the attention of the chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board.

Does that include all the reasons for classification?

Any contravention must be brought to the attention of the Liquor Licensing Board. For what other reasons are conditions laid down? Surely the Police cannot witness a contravention and not report it. Surely they must bring it to the attention of the Liquor Licensing Board concerned.

You have missed my point.

If the hon. member will allow me, I just want to add the following. Section 79 (2) as inserted in section 137 (1) (b) refers to structural alterations carried out without authority. As far as I can see, that is all that is being added.

I agree that if there is an offence it must be reported. However, as it is now, this is not going to be only offences. This is going to be breaches of any condition and regulation imposed. For instance, it is laid down that before a hotel may classify it must have a bedside light. That is just one of something like 800 conditions for classification. I say that this clause means that if a policeman should walk into a bedroom and the bedside light is fused he would have to report it to the chairman of the Licensing Board because that is a condition of classification. If that condition is broken the hotel can theoretically lose its licence. Surely, it is not the intention to have this sort of ridiculous state of affairs that if the toilet paper is finished or a light is fused a policeman has to report it to the chairman of the board, because those are conditions of classification. This change of the wording means that a policeman must report every contravention of condition.

That is not the intention of it.

It is intended that a policeman should report every one of these piffling little things. So, it bears out what I have said that he would spend his time doing nothing but reporting this sort of thing. Now that the conditions are increasing, I suggest that not an increase but a decrease in reports should be made necessary, in other words, that a policeman should report material matters and contraventions which are an offence or which are deleterious to the condition of the licence as a whole, but not all this nonsense that it is going to involve.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 53:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for a minimum sentence for certain offences. The offences are very minor and I submit that it is quite unnecessary to have a minimum sentence for this type of offence, which can be committed quite unwittingly. A licensee dies and there are delays in getting his executor appointed and in getting a licence in his name in terms of the Administration of Estates Act. It may also happen in the case of insolvency that somebody carries on before a legal representative has been appointed. Thus he may in fact be committing an offence.

I submit that the hon. the Minister can achieve his object by increasing the maximum fine, as he has done, and that it is quite unnecessary to put a minimum fine. I will give you an example. For instance, under section 164 (a) of the Principal Act any person shall be guilty of an offence if he—

The Minister may say that this is a silly example but supposing a friend asks him for a bottle of whisky and he says that he will give him the bottle. The friend then says that instead of replacing the bottle of whisky with another bottle he will pay for it and then pays his friend the cost of the whisky. That in fact is a sale of that bottle of whisky. The hon. the Minister may say that there will not be prosecution in a case like that. But there may be a prosecution. It is to avoid cases of this nature being dealt with harshly by the court that we feel that the court should always be given a discretion in matters of this kind. Our party’s line has always been to oppose minimum sentences. The House knows that we have taken a general line to oppose minimum sentences because we always stood by the principle that it must be left to the discretion of the court. In a case like this, where there can be such a vast penalty imposed for what might be quite an innocent transaction, we feel that the court should be allowed to exercise its own discretion. In terms of party policy we have always allowed a free vote on any amendment to the liquor law. In fact, it has been usual for both sides of the House to treat liquor Bills as non-party measures and to allow a free vote. In this case, however, there is a principle involved. It is the principle of minimum sentences. Although this is a liquor Bill in which our members have been given, as usual, freedom to vote as they like, on this particular clause we are opposing it as a party because of the principle of the minimum sentences.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the hon. member for Transkei and I also wish to take the matter a little further. The hon. the Minister will remember I wrote to him asking him to incorporate an amendment into the Liquor Act regarding the situation that arises when an employee who is a licensee absconds so that the premises concerned are left without a licensee. There is provision for temporary relief in various instances, but there is no provision for an employee who is the licensee and who absconds. I wrote and asked for an amendment which would make it possible for a director of the company employing the absconder, or a partner, if it should be a partnership, to automatically act as licensee for a certain time. The Minister said it was not necessary; all that was necessary, he said, was that application should simply be made in terms of section 47 and the authority would be granted immediately.

Yes.

The Minister agrees that that is correct. But it is not correct in fact. It is correct in the Minister’s mind, it is correct in theory, but in practice that does not happen. I have here in front of me particulars concerning eight cases of this nature which occurred within the last few months. One case concerned an application under section 47 (3) which was made on the 4th February of this year and it was only authorized on the 17th February, nearly two weeks later. In the next case application was lodged on 20th November, 1968 and it was only granted on the 5th December. Then an application was lodged on 10th December, 1968, and authorized on the 18th December, the quickest of the lot, namely eight days. In another case application was lodged on the 4th of the month and authorized on the 17th. In yet another case application was lodged on the 13th June and authorized on the 4th July, a delay of just on three weeks, and so it goes on.

These are specific cases, not pie in the sky; this is not what may happen. If I had said delays of this nature could happen the Minister would say I am exaggerating. Well, I am not exaggerating now, these are facts of what happened. This means that for periods from a minimum of eight days to up to three weeks every one of these premises was selling liquor without a licence, they were contravening the law. This was not of their own fault, because they had lodged their applications, but there were these long delays.

Are they Natal cases?

No, these occurred mainly in the Cape. As I say, for from eight days to three weeks every one of these firms was breaking the law, every one was committing the offence for which there is now to be a minimum sentence of not less than R100 or imprisonment for a period of not less than three months.

Were they hotel cases?

Hotels and bars, and in one case off-consumption. The police should, in terms of the law, have arrested any one of these people, they should have been charged, and, in terms of this clause, they should be given a minimum sentence without the magistrate being able to exercise a discretion. Moreover, if it happened to be a second offence and they were fined R200, they could be barred from ever again having a licence. There are a tremendous number of licensees who have committed minor offences. I am referring to the clause which not only makes it an offence to sell without a licence but provides that any offence under the Act for which a certain sentence is imposed, disqualifies a person from being a licensee. Last year and this year people whose stock books were not to the satisfaction of the inspector and who signed admissions of guilt because it was the easiest way, far cheaper than defending the case, have a first offence already. If one of them died, or if a licensee absconded, and they followed the laid down procedure in terms of section 47 of the Act, they are all committing the offence of selling without a licence.

If the licensee of the President Hotel here in Cape Town dropped down dead at this moment, then that hotel should, in terms of the law, close its liquor doors immediately, because there is no licensee. We have pleaded for provision to be made for this gap in our legislation because the present situation is quite unsatisfactory. Moreover, we object most strongly to a minimum sentence being imposed for an offence over which the person might have no control and which can have far-reaching consequences on the whole business future of a company or a person. The Minister by his gestures now has indicated that again I am exaggerating and making a mountain out of a molehill. In other words, the Minister is in effect saying we are making laws in this House which he does not expect to be carried out. I say that is the implication of the Minister’s objection to our approach to this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, let us just get this clear; this clause deals exclusively with a case in which business is carried on without a licence; it deals only with that. Minimum penalties are then prescribed. I purposely asked the hon. member whether those were Natal cases-—and he replied that they were Cape cases—because I want to tell him that the Natal Bottle Store Association specifically requested this. Furthermore I want to tell him that the organized liquor trade and Fedhasa specifically requested this and support it. It has always been possible, in the event of death, to lodge an immediate application under section 47, and since 1928, when the Liquor Act came into operation, we have not had one case of a liquor licensee being prosecuted in those circumstances—not one single one in all these years. There is not a sign of any such charge on record.

But the offence is clear, the offence is created.

Yes, I readily concede that what the hon. member is describing, can in fact happen. The licensee may drop down dead and for the next five or ten minutes or until such time as a licence is acquired, there is no licence, but no prosecution will ever be instituted in such a case.

I referred here to a case that took three weeks.

The hon. member may bring cases in which it took so long, to my attention, and I shall inquire about them, because it should not take so long. Under section 47 matters should be dealt with much more quickly, because they are all emergencies. If the hon. member would care to bring it to my attention, I shall contact the liquor licensing boards to see what the position is and to see whether things cannot be expedited. The liquor trade itself wants minimum sentences in the case of liquor business being conducted without a licence, and so does the Natal association. I therefore think this clause is very fair.

For the sake of the record, Mr. Chairman, I must deal with the hon. the Minister’s statement that Fedhasa and the Natal Bottle Store Association asked for this provision.

Yes, they did.

I put it to him that what they asked for was a minimum sentence for shebeening, what they are trying to fight is shebeening and the illicit liquor trade. What we are objecting to is the creation of offences which affect the legitimate trader because of technicalities. The Minister, in order to deal with shebeening and illicit trading, is laying down a minimum sentence which will have to be imposed upon the ordinary legitimate trader who, because of a technicality and because the machinery of the Minister’s own Department is slow, will be committing an offence for which there is a minimum sentence laid down. All the Minister has proven is that since 1928 there has been no prosecution for offences which are committed weekly, monthly, and year in and year out, so what he in fact is saying is, “We make it an offence but we do not prosecute”. He is creating an offence here and I ask the Minister to distinguish between the shebeener, the illicit liquor runner, and the legitimate trader.

What is a shebeener other than a person who deals without a licence?

It is bringing the person with a licence who, for some or other reason technically breaks the law, into the same category and subject to the same punishments as the shebeener. It would apply, for instance, to a hotel who illegally sold liquor at a function without the necessary temporary licence.

And that is wrong.

Yes, it is wrong, but would the Minister then consider that if for instance the Nationalist Party had a braaivleis and the hotelier who supplies the liquor did not take out a temporary licence, that hotelier should be given a minimum goal sentence if he had previously signed an admission of guilt for some offence? I must say I should not like that to happen at some function I had arranged. The Minister says it is wrong. He is creating an offence, and that is what we are objecting to, namely the creation of an offence with a minimum sentence which applies to a legitimate dealer. If the Minister wants to deal with shebeeners then he can deal with them in another way, and he can raise the maximum to R2.000 for all I care. But I say leave the punishment in the court’s discretion, do not bring in a minimum sentence, and do not bring the legitimate trader into the scope of these provisions.

Clause 53 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—92: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, J. J.; Marais. J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel. J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—27: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Winchester, L. E. D.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 55:

Mr. Chairman, amongst other things this clause provides that on a day which is a day for municipal elections it is not necessary for the pubs to close and that one may sell liquor as freely as one may on an ordinary day. It is not provided that this should happen on a day which is a day appointed in terms …

Order! This House has not yet adjourned.

It is not provided that this should be the case on a day appointed in terms of the Electoral Act for the holding of a Provincial Council election or for the holding of a parliamentary election. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell us what lies behind this. I would have thought that if ever there was an election where people might be induced to go and vote for someone on the basis that he might buy him a drink on the way, then it might be a municipal election, certainly not a provincial election or a parliamentary election. The obvious reason is that one is voting for a cause if it is a parliamentary election. One is voting for a party, not for an individual as such, but in the municipal elections one is voting for an individual. If one looks at the figures of the appalling percentage of people who vote at these elections, one would not be surprised if this in fact was so. This whole provision about liquor on an election day goes back into the good old days of yore in Great Britain, where it was apparently a common thing for people to be treated in the village pub on their way to the polls. This has somehow survived. Now we have this extraordinary event that the hon. the Minister feels that people probably cannot be trusted to vote properly on national matters while liquor is available, either for the Provincial Council or for Parliament. Apparently they can be trusted to do so in a municipal election. One wonders, in fact, whether, if people were a little less inhibited, they would not vote differently from the way most of them have done. I wonder whether this is not what the Minister is worrying about.

Our legislation has all these years been such that election days have been closed days. There has only been one exception, and that is municipal by-elections. In such cases it has never been a closed day. Experience has taught us that as far as municipal by-elections are concerned, nothing untoward happens. If nothing untoward happens at a by-election, the provision that it will no longer be a closed day could just as well be applied to municipal elections in general. We have not yet reached the stage where consideration has to be given to provincial elections and parliamentary elections, but we have definitely reached the stage that, as regards municipal elections, we can do away with the provision that such election days should be closed days.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to paragraph (h), which alters the definition of East Griqualand as follows:

There is another clause which also deals with this point, namely clause 58. Clause 58 also amends the definition of East Griqualand as it appeared in Proclamation No. 333 of 1949. The effect of amending the definition is that the district of Mount Currie—that is where Kokstad is situated—will now be licensed under this Liquor Act. At present Kokstad, Mount Currie district and the rest of East Griqualand and the Transkei are administered by the Transkei Liquor Proclamation. As I pointed out the other day, we have our own liquor proclamation there. [Interjection.] Clause 58 alters the definition in the principal Act. If the Minister prefers I will deal with it under clause 58.

Mr. Chairman, I could not follow the reasoning of the hon. the Minister who says that we have advanced far enough to allow liquor on municipal election days, but we have not advanced far enough to allow it on parliamentary or provincial election days.

He did not say that.

Well, that was the implication. He said we started by having open days on days of municipal by-elections, and now we have advanced to having open days on days of all municipal elections.

Experience has taught us that …

Why does the hon. Minister want to stop there? Why does the hon. Minister not start testing whether we are advanced enough to be almost adult and to have other elections …

That is not really under the Statute, you may notice.

You can start with by-elections. [Interjections.] Now I want to deal with another aspect here and that is on page 56, paragraph (d). This provides against a new danger to the morals of the people of South Africa, something which can undermine the whole of our national lives and that is the insertion of the words “any sweet containing more than 2 per cent alcohol by weight”. This is being done because of a case in which a departmental store sold chocolate liqueurs, and it was found that the chocolate liqueurs had more than 2 per cent alcohol. Really, Mr. Chairman, what are we getting to, if we are now going to legislate to stop people eating chocolate liqueurs? Has the hon. the Minister ever heard of a shebeen running on chocolate liqueurs? Has the hon. the Minister ever heard of a party where persons got drunk on chocolate liqueurs?

Oh, yes!

Well, I can understand if the hon. the Deputy Minister has had that experience, but frankly, I have never heard of anyone who could stomach enough chocolate to get himself drunk on it: Really, I think we are becoming ridiculous when we go looking for liquor in sweets and we pass a law to stop them being sold.

Is that what you use? [Interjections.]

Order!

As a matter of fact, I do not eat chocolate liqueurs; I do not have a sweet tooth. I like my liquor straight with a little dilution …

I told you he does not add any water!

… and I do not like mixing it up with sweets. However, this is a very ridiculous matter to us and I ask the Minister whether there is any justification for this sort of clause, this sort of provision to be added to the law?

Before the Act is amended as now proposed, it will in any case be an offence to sell liquor in chocolates. This is the case referred to by the hon. member. The hon. member euphemistically speaks of “chocolate liqueurs”, but it was ordinary liquor in a chocolate casing. There have been complaints in this connection and, to put it plainly, there is a difference of opinion among the various Attorneys-General. Some of them are of the opinion that the present provisions do not cover it, but most of them are of the opinion that they do cover it. The reason why this provision is included in the Bill is to clarify the position.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication why it is 2 per cent by weight, and why it is not 2 per cent by volume? Once you allow these sweets to be sold, it is 2 per cent by weight. One does not control the volume of alcohol which is being sold in each of the sweets. In other words, the bigger it is, depending on the casing, the more liquor it can contain. If you have a huge chocolate liqueur, then you will get a sizeable amount of alcohol in it, depending on the size. I think it is right. So that you could apparently sell something with five tots of liquor in it, depending on how much you put around it. You could apparently, therefore, sell a sweet with five tots of liqueur in it, depending on how much chocolate you put around it. If you want to do so, it is possible, according to the definition in the Bill. I think that is so.

It seems like it.

Well, is the definition right? Should volume or weight then be the determining factor here? In any event, Sir, why has a figure of 2 per cent been decided upon? Surely this provision is not going to work anyway. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate whether he is prepared to change this provision.

Mr. Chairman, this problem caused me difficulties too, i.e. the problem of whether we should go by volume or by weight. It can also happen that alcohol is put into a sweet in virtually solid form. We then consulted the pathologists. They recommended that the provision should be drawn up by weight. I readily concede, however, that one can make a very big chocolate with a little bit of liquor in it, and in that way one will not be contravening this provision. In that case one will have a large quantity of chocolate and a small quantity of liquor.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 58:

Sir, I was explaining earlier on that the effect of this amendment will be to bring the Mount Currie district under the Liquor Act. According to this provision the Mount Currie district will no longer fall under the Transkeian Liquor Proclamation. Hon. members may ask: What difference does it make if this area now falls under the Liquor Act? Why not have uniformity and bring this area under the Liquor Act? I should like to point out that we will not have uniformity in the Transkei if this amendment is carried, because different provisions will be enforced in the Transkei and Mount Currie. In the Transkei the Proclamation will be applied and in the Mount Currie area the Liquor Act. As people approach the Mount Currie district and Kokstad through the Transkei, they will fall under the Liquor Act. As they leave Kokstad again and pass through the Transkei on the other side, they will then fall under the provisions of the Liquor Proclamation. If they come from the Natal side to get to the Transkei, they will arrive at Umzimkulu, Bizana or wherever the entrance may be and they will find themselves subject to the Liquor Proclamation of the Transkei. As they get into the Mount Currie district, they will find themselves subject to the Liquor Act, and as they leave Mount Currie again, on their way down to the Cape, they will once more be subject to the provisions of the Liquor Proclamation. I say that it is wrong that people travelling through a territory like that should find themselves subject to different liquor provisions. This especially affects the traveller. He will not know exactly what his position is as far as the liquor laws are concerned, when he travels through the Transkei.

The licensees in Mount Currie are opposed to this change, and so are the residents in East Griqualand. I shall explain why. The licensees have met officials from the Government. The Minister was kind enough to send his officials down to meet the licensees. Lengthy discussions took place. The licensees put their case to the officials. The Minister has now taken just about two years or 18 months to consider their objections. He is now applying this provision. The licensees are opposed to this change in the first place because, under the Transkei Proclamation, they are not subject to classification. In other words, under that proclamation they can carry on with their licences as they are now, and under the Transkei Proclamation all hotels have off-sales privileges. Under the Liquor Act they will have to qualify for off-saïes privileges. They will have to be classified. This provision will therefore be a hardship on the hotels in that area.

In Kokstad itself there are two large hotels, but in the rural area there are three country hotels. Those rural hotels are more like clubs than hotels. They are merely clubs, supplying facilities to the farmers in that area. One hotel may be said to be more a hotel than a club, but the other two are, I submit, purely in the nature of clubs. This is important when one considers the advantages that the people living in the area have under the Transkei Proclamation when compared to the Liquor Act. On Sundays, for instance, under the Transkei Proclamation, any bona fide traveller entering the area is entitled to have drinks in the hotel. He may not order drinks in the restricted portion of the bar, but he may do so in the hotel without being signed on as a guest, and without having a meal. In terms of the Liquor Act he would have to wait for a meal or he would have to be signed on as a guest. In the Transkei it is traditional that sports meetings are held on Sundays. That is because of the nature of the area. In the old days the traders used to travel into the villages and they used to take part in sport on Sundays. This tradition has been carried on. It is still so in East Griqualand. The farmers then visit the particular areas where one finds these hotels. It is true that they will still be able to enjoy refreshments at those hotels under the Act, but they will then have to be signed on as guests. Somebody has to be the host. Somebody has to pay for the alcohol, whereas under the present system in the Transkei they can merely go into the lounge and order their refreshment there.

There are other provisions in the Transkei Proclamation which differ from the provisions in the Act. I pointed out, when dealing with an earlier clause, that women are allowed in the bars. They do not go into the bars in the bigger towns, but in the smaller areas they do in fact do so, where the hotels are, as I have said, treated as clubs. That is of course not in accordance with the Liquor Act, unless the hotel is especially classified and is then given that privilege. They are also entitled to have barmaids. I do not think that any of those hotels employ barmaids at the moment, but they are entitled to do so and they have done so in the past. If there had been a question of urgency in this regard, I could understand the Minister wanting to pass this amendment now. But I submit that there is no urgency in this matter. As the conditions in the Transkei change, as the towns in the Transkei, under Government policy, become blacker, as the Whites move out of the towns as the result of zoning, and as the Department of Bantu Administration and the Bantu Investment Corporation buy more hotels, as they have started doing in the Transkei, these towns will then fall under the provisions of the Transkei Liquor Act, which is different from the Transkei Liquor Proclamation. The Transkei Liquor Act has been passed by the Transkei Government. This Act controls licences in areas falling under the jurisdiction of the Transkei Government. As these Transkeian villages become blacker, they will eventually all fall under the jurisdiction of the Transkei Government, in which event the Transkei Liquor Act will apply to them. I therefore put it to the Minister, and I request, as the hoteliers have in fact requested, that he leaves this amendment over until the rest of the villages and towns in the Transkei do in fact fall under the Transkei Liquor Act. That will be the time for him to step in and bring Kokstad and the Mount Currie district under the Liquor Act of the Republic. But at the moment, if this amendment is passed, there will be three different authorities in the Transkei. There will be the Transkei Liquor Proclamation, the Transkei Liquor Act, and the Liquor Act of the Republic. I submit that there will be more and more confusion in the Transkei as a result of the application of these various laws. I appeal to the hon. the Minister. I submit that it is not too late. There is no urgency for this measure. He knows that the people in the area do not want this amendment. Representations have been made to him. I know that the general public do not want an amendment of this nature. The Minister himself has not given us any valid reason as to why it should be proceeded with at this stage.

Business interrupted.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.