I move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a speech on this occasion but as the result of a certain newspaper report I find it necessary to make the following statement:

I wish to take this opportunity to refer to a report which appeared in The Star on Monday in connection with the sale of gold. This report ostensibly emanated from The Star’s Bureau in London and quoted nameless Swiss Bankers and gold dealers and the London Times. Seldom have so many half-truths and plain untruths been compressed into a brief news report.

The report appeared under the headline “Gold Price: S.A. Accepts No Rise Likely” and started by quoting Zurich bankers and gold dealers “in regular contact with Pretoria” as saying that “South Africa now accepts that a rise in the official price of gold … is highly unlikely”. This is untrue. I do not expect that the official price of gold will necessarily rise within weeks or even months, but, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I do believe that economic conditions are tending in a direction which makes an increase in the gold price ultimately inevitable.

The report went on to quote The Times as saying that my recent visit to Europe was an unsuccessful one, apparently because European central banks made it clear to me that “the flotation of public loans on the European capital market to allow South Africa to obtain foreign exchange without selling gold was “unwelcome”. This is also untrue. No European or any other central bank made any such suggestion to me.

Zurich bankers are then again quoted as claiming that the German Bundesbank (the Central Bank) had forced the postponement of the 100-million mark loan which I arranged in Frankfurt. This is falsehood No. 3. The loan was indeed postponed from the date envisaged at an earlier stage of the negotiations, but this was done to avoid a clash with the loan which we floated in Switzerland; the Bundesbank had nothing to do with it.

A Times correspondent was then quoted as saying that: “The majority of bankers I spoke to on a visit to Zurich last week felt that South Africa blundered when it suddenly unloaded 160 million dollars worth of the metal on the Zurich market in the middle of last year. They are advising South Africa that the timing and scale of future sales should be arranged as secretly as possible and in such a way as to cause the minimum impact on the free market price”. In fact our gold sales on the free market in the middle of last year were arranged in secret and had little or no effect on the free market price. The operation was so successful that for months financial correspondents doubted my statement in July that the quantity of gold sold was “substantial”.

Hon. members can draw their own conclusions regarding the motives of the author of this report. They may find a clue in the concluding sentence of the report, which, referring to a possible agreement on gold sales, reads as follows: “The major concessions are expected to come from South Africa”. The wish, it seems to me, is father to the thought.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has clarified a position which we agree wholeheartedly is a delicate one and one which requires accuracy.

This Third Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill gives the Opposition an opportunity to raise certain matters which it believes should be raised in the public interest. First and foremost there is the question of the person living on a fixed income, the pensioner, the family man, the person feeling the pinch of the increase in the cost of living. We know the Minister quoted certain figures concerning the cost of living, but those figures are little solace to the pensioner and others who are struggling from day to day. If these figures are intended to show that people are to-day better off than before, then we say it is not so because in real life these people are having a struggle. We on this side have at no stage suggested the Government is doing nothing, for instance in regard to social and other pensions. These pensioners do receive some relief from time to time. Our charge against the Government is when they do give relief, it is inadequate. In the result many of these people continue to struggle under severe financial hardships. The present-day social pension is in the region of R32 per month, which is just over R1 per day. We know these people suffer severe financial hardship, despite the increases in their pensions. Although the pension increases might compare favourably with the cost-of-living increases, we still believe them to be inadequate, and one of the reasons for this inadequacy is that the system which we have had in use over the years since 1928 requires a drastic overhaul.

If we look at the system we see it embodies the means test, and this test has to be applied if you do not have a contributory pension scheme. This system has been discarded in most civilized countries and I believe the time has come for this Government to reconsider the important aspects of social security. We have a modified form of social security in South Africa at the present time, and it has been built on from time to time. Surely the time is now ripe for the hon. the Minister of Finance as well as the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, who is a new Minister, to have a full investigation to see whether the system cannot be brought into line with present-day trends. In 1944 there was a select committee on social security. That was 25 years ago and much water has flowed under the bridges since then. What might have been considered socialistic 25 years ago is now considered realistic in terms of present-day thinking, taking into consideration the economy of the country and the security that should be offered to its inhabitants.

The Government has indicated that in principle it believed a person should have a pension in the latter part of his life. We on this side agree with the Minister and the Government as far as that point is concerned. But as far as the application of this principle is concerned, we disagree. In 1964 the then Minister of Finance appointed the Cilliers Committee of Inquiry, which had to inquire into private pension funds and its report was tabled in this House last year. This report falls to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance, and when he replies to the Third Reading debate on this Bill I think the Minister should give some indication as to whether he has considered the report’s recommendations and whether he intends accepting any of them. This is vitally important in view of the fact that it is the Government’s declared policy to encourage private pension schemes. If one looks at this report it becomes evident that the Government’s system is not satisfying the demands made upon it as regards providing a pension for all at a time when people are unable to fend for themselves any longer. In terms of the Government’s policy of encouraging private pension funds, there is no indication as to how many decades will pass before all people are covered by some pension fund or other. We on this side believe a national contributory pension scheme will be of great advantage to the country, and moreover it can be supplementary to private pension funds. It would ensure immediately that all the country’s inhabitants are covered by a pension scheme and an adequate system of social security.

This Celliers report contains some revealing observations and conclusions concerning the present system which the Government is encouraging. For instance, a test check taken of ten funds revealed that 48.2 per cent of the amounts paid out in one year represented repayments to members who resigned. Surely the very object of this form of investment—because this pension fund is an investment—is defeated when in one year 48.2 per cent of the money paid out by ten funds was caused by resignations. It also shows that the withdrawals from the funds, over a period of four years, from 1961 to 1964, amount to no less than R60 million, for reasons other than death or retirement. This is the very reason why the purpose for which the money was primarily intended, is being defeated. The committee found that the transferability of funds by law is not a practical proposition. It made other recommendations with regard to the preservation of pension benefits; it created a central pension bureau and deals with other important factors that are involved. But the point is that under the present policy of the Government, if it is to encourage pension funds, first and foremost it must put in order to the best of its ability its present system of encouraging these pension funds. Judged by the figures I have referred to, it is not a question of interfering in any way with what provision is being made. If one takes into consideration the United States of America, which is quoted in this report, it is stated that 90 per cent of the labour force of the United States is covered by retirement benefits in terms of their social security legislation. One half of the employed labour force in the private sector is also covered by private occupation pension schemes. Surely, this indicates that it is possible to have a system in South Africa which will be supplementary to the policy of the Government, endeavouring to encourage the formation and the establishment of further private pension funds. However, there is no indication from the Government as to how long it would take before they reach the situation whereby all will be covered by some pension fund or other.

With regard to the national contributory pension scheme, which we have put forward from this side of the House in detail on many occasions in the past, I do not intend to cover that ground again this afternoon; but I believe it is an important matter of principle whereby the Government, and particularly the Minister of Finance, is responsible for finding something like R120 million for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. If one analyses the figures, one soon sees that an annual amount of over R60 million is being paid merely in respect of white social pensioners. It means that, with the growth of the population the ratio of people over 60 years of age is continuing to increase, and the Government will be faced with an ever increasing bill to pay in regard to a non-contributory system, which is now being paid by the State. I believe that sooner or later the Government must accept this fact. It will become inevitable that such a scheme will have to come into operation to meet the shortcomings that exist in our present system. Here the whole question of relating the amount of pension paid to the scheme is an important one. We know that from time to time over the last two years, the Government has granted increases. They are very small increases indeed. They only amounted to R1 a month, for most social pensions. But this system will always mean that it is lagging behind in regard to the standard of living which these people try to maintain. It becomes increasingly difficult for them to maintain any sort of decent standard of living. We believe that it is important that this whole system should receive further consideration by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

As far as other aspects which affect people are concerned, we believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance should give sympathetic consideration of the question of taxation. Here I refer particularly to the question of taxation on pensions. We know that in terms of section 10 (1) (g) of the Income Tax Act, there are only three groups of pensions which are excluded for the calculation of taxable income, namely the war veterans’ pension, the military pension and a pension paid for miner’s phthisis or any other miner’s disease. We agree that it is an important exemption. However, surely the time has also arrived that some relief should be afforded to the pensioner, particularly those who are over 70 years of age, these people who pay tax all their lives and continue to pay tax. As far as the pensions schemes are concerned which the Government encourages, we know there is a saving on taxation; but in actual fact it merely amounts to delayed taxation, because the person finds that when he does go on pension, he obviously continues to pay tax. He has to pay tax until he reaches the last of his days. So it really is delayed taxation. We come to the position where these people are also called upon to pay the loan levy. We know that this is a particularly difficult point, when a person who is reaching the latter stage of his life is called upon to pay considerable sums in loan levies.

I believe that it is important that the hon. the Minister should give some relief to these people and that if it is not possible to exclude pensions in the calculation of the taxable income, at least a portion of the pensions should be subject to some relief as far as taxation is concerned. While dealing with the question of taxation another important point is that the Government continually encourage the people to remain productive. They continually endeavour to encourage people to be productive in the labour force in South Africa. Here is a good opportunity for the hon. the Minister of Finance to show goodwill towards this idea by granting some form of tax relief to the companies which employ the older workers. There are many older workers who, because they have reached a certain age, are then told that their services are no longer required. Many of these are experienced and still fit and capable of performing a full day’s work. They should be encouraged to remain as part of the labour force and the labour market in South Africa. One finds that many of them, even when they apply for unemployment benefits, are regarded by the claims officer as no longer available for the labour market. Consequently they only receive the unemployment benefits for a short while and are then, as a person in such a category remarked to me the other day, thrown on the ash heap. There is a tremendous potential labour force amongst these older workers. In other countries which are experiencing a shortage of labour in certain fields, they go out of their way to encourage these people. Only last year the former President of the United States, President Johnson, announced that a special scheme had been undertaken by the United States Labour Department to encourage older workers in their economy. If they are to be encouraged and if employers are to be encouraged to employ these persons so as to utilize our labour force to the fullest extent, I believe the inducement should come from the hon. the Minister of Finance to grant some tax relief to those companies who are employing a certain percentage of older workers on their staff.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the various points raised concerning increases that have been granted to pensioners and older people as well as other concessions. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, however, whether he takes into consideration when calculating the increases that have been granted to certain groups and categories, that some of these people, in fact, receive nothing whatsoever as far as an increase is concerned. The Government is merely giving it with one hand and taking it away with the other. Here I refer particularly to a large group of civil pensioners who had their bonuses increased with an announcement in the Budget last year from the 1st October, 1968. The older pensioner who is receiving special supplementary allowances to bring him up to a minimum pension of R94 per month, actually received no increase at all. Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a case; it is not an isolated case, because it affects many thousands of civil pensioners, but it is one which I believe illustrates the point. It is a case of a man who received a basic pension of R26.83 per month. He then had his bonus increased by 5 per cent and received a temporary and a supplementary allowance, making his pension R94 per month. He is a married civil pensioner who had more than 40 years of service in the Civil Service. On the 1st October, 1968, this person received an increase of R1.34 in his bonus. A letter I received quotes the person’s name and then says that the receipt of this supplementary allowance assures him of a minimum income of R94 per month. The letter reads further—

Many civil pensioners, who welcomed the news that they were going to receive a 5 per cent increase in their bonuses when the Budget was announced, then found that when it was put into practice on the 1st October, that an increase is given on the one hand and that the amount is reduced on the other hand and that they are in exactly the same position as they were before the announcement was made.

That is public deception.

A similar position exists in respect of the military pensioner. We from this side of the House shouted “Hear, hear!” when the hon. Minister of Finance announced a general increase of 10 per cent in military pensions. But what has happened to them? They did receive the 10 per cent but if they were receiving an old age or a war veterans’ pension, or any social pension, this social pension was correspondingly reduced. In that way this group, too, was placed in exactly the same financial position as they were in prior to the Minister of Finance announcing the 10 per cent increase. I should, therefore, like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether when he estimated what the additional expenditure would be to pensioners, such as the pensioners of the two groups I have mentioned, he took into account the fact that many of these people would in the end receive no increase at all.

I should like to deal a little further with the position of these people generally. In this connection I should like to refer to a statement made by the new Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. In a major policy speech, reported in the Daily News of the 26th November, 1968, he said, while opening a new home for old people, that there were serious defects in South Africa’s current services for the aged and that these defects would have to be corrected before the services to our aged could be developed in a healthy direction. He came to the conclusion that South Africa was placing emphasis in its care of the aged on the wrong place and believed that too many of South Africa’s old people were being placed in homes for the aged.

Well, we agree that the present system stands in need of a radical overhaul. As a matter of fact, the heading to this article was “New deal for the aged proposed”. Further in his speech the Minister set out three pillars on which, he said, he was going to base his policy. The first of these was to keep the aged within the community as long as possible. He said they should be allowed to continue to live in their natural surroundings and be provided with the necessary services so as to enable them to cope with the problems of old age. With this point of view we agree 100 per cent. But what, in actual fact, is happening? It is, in fact, not possible for these people to remain in their respective communities because of the inadequate pension that is being paid to them. Financially it is not possible for a person to live on R32 per month. So, how can these people remain in their respective communities? Certain services are provided by welfare organizations, services aimed at achieving that very thing, i.e. to keep the aged within their respective communities. In this connection I have in mind the meals-on-wheels service being run by welfare organizations to assist persons living in homes and rooms. Thereby they are enabled to receive a meal three times a week at a very reduced fee. Furthermore, they run home health services, especially where an aged person is unable to look after him or herself. But what is the position in this respect? The position is that welfare organizations providing these services receive no subsidy whatever in respect thereof. Therefore, here is a matter to which the hon. the Minister could very well give serious attention. He should seriously consider financial assistance to those welfare organizations which provide these services with the specific aim of keening the aged within their respective communities. Surely, they should receive some financial assistance in order to achieve that object.

The second pillar the Minister said he was going to base his policy on was that with the help of social workers and helpers the greatest degree of independence should be brought within the reach of those aged who are unable to remain in their homes. These could then be placed in flats where they should be enabled to enjoy the security and protection they need. This, too, is a commendable idea. But here again, where are they to find the necessary accommodation? The third pillar of the Minister’s policy deals with the mentally and physically weak who should be placed in homes for the frail aged. Here again we have a large gap in our welfare services.

The Minister admitted that there was a great field open for him here to improve the lot of these people. Only, it is a pity that the Government waited so long before realizing that the present system has these shortcomings.

The Minister announced at the end of the Second-Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill that pamphlets were now being issued for the guidance of social pensioners. Let me say right away that we welcome the idea. For many years we have felt that it is important for these people to know what they are entitled to. The idea is, therefore, welcomed by us. However, this pamphlet has certain shortcomings. It should be of paramount importance that people be informed of what they are entitled to, irrespective of the cost. Laws are being placed on our Statute Book giving certain persons the right to claim certain social pensions, benefits, grants and allowances and it is of vital importance that these people should be informed accordingly. That is why I feel it is a pity that this pamphlet should be so brief. As a matter of fact, there are some vital omissions. For instance, no mention has been made at all of residential qualifications. The means test for a war veteran over 70 years of age is completely different to the means test for the old aged and for the war veterans under 70 years of age. But yet there is no mention in this pamphlet of the different means tests. It is possible that if a war veteran reads this pamphlet he wouldn’t realize that he is entitled to apply for a pension, and this is because of the fact that there is no mention at all of the relaxed means test for a war veteran over 70 years of age.

Earlier on I referred to the expressed wish of the Government that people should remain in a productive capacity in the labour market. In this connection an important concession has been made to working wives supporting a disabled or aged husband, a concession whereby only one third of her income was being taken into account—in fact, really one sixth. But of this concession there is no mention in this pamphlet. Another vitally important fact which has been omitted from this pamphlet is that the Government, in its endeavour to keep people within the labour market, brought in legislation providing for an additional allowance to be paid to persons falling within this category, an allowance depending upon their age at the date of application. This came into operation on the 1st October, 1966. However, it is clearly stated in the regulations that if a woman applicant delays her application until she is 61 years of age she could get an extra R4 per month, at 62 an extra R6, at 63 an extra R8 and an extra R10 if she waits until she is 64. These extra allowances also apply to a man after he has reached the qualifying age of 65 years. This is an important provision in so far as these people, if properly informed, could wait for the increased amounts. As a matter of fact, they can remain in employment, if fit enough, until they qualify for the increased allowance. But no mention at all is being made in this pamphlet of this fact. In one particular case a woman applied three days before her 61st birthday and, accordingly, only received the normal pension. On the other hand, if someone in the department could have informed her to wait three days she could have got another R4 per month. These are additional benefits which people struggling to live on small amounts welcome.

What information does that pamphlet contain?

Well, it does contain some information and in so far as it does do that, we welcome it. Surely it should be possible to provide a greater degree of information. I notice that at the bottom here it says: “Your Member of Parliament will also be able to advise you.” The position is that a greater degree of information could certainly be given to members of the public.

Then, Sir, I would like to deal with another aspect. I believe this is another shortcoming. I certainly do not intend dealing with the means test, because another opportunity will arise during the course of the Session to do so. However, there is another aspect, which I believe is an important one under our present system and which affects the means test. It affects many people in the latter part of their life, at a time when they are entitled to a little bit of extra enjoyment. I refer here to the question of marriage. We find in many cases that a widow and a widower who wish to get married, fail to obtain the necessary information from the Department of Social Welfare, and when they do obtain this information they find that their marriage has been a very costly business indeed and that they are far worse off financially. Here I refer to civil pensioners as well as social pensioners. I want to mention a case which I dealt with recently. This is one of many but I think this particular case illustrates my point. A man aged 71, drawing a pension of R42 per month, i.e. R32 plus an extra R10, with assets of R8,000, married a widow of 66 with assets of R6,000. She was also receiving R42 per month. Their assets together amounted to R14,000, which exceeds the limit of the means test for a married couple. This meant that they jointly lost R84 per month. In other words they had to pay a penalty of R84 per month as far as their pensions were concerned, for getting married.

Must they live in sin?

My hon. friend here asks whether they are expected to live in sin. I am sure the Government would certainly not encourage that sort of thing. Surely these people would be happier if they could live together with pride and without harming their reputations.

A similar position exists where a civil pensioner’s widow wishes to marry. In this particular case a widow was receiving a minimum civil widow’s pension of R47 per month, but immediately she married her pension was reduced to R15.46. She lost her temporary allowance and her supplementary allowance of R31.54. The man she married was a war veteran who at that time was receiving R39 per month. Because his wife had assets and he had certain assets as well, and their combined assets exceeded the means test limitation, he lost his war veteran’s pension entirely, which was R39 per month; the wife lost her temporary and supplementary allowance of R31.54, so together they lost R70.54 per month through getting married. Surely if the Government desires to see these people enjoy just a little more happiness in the twilight of their lives, these various shortcomings should be fully investigated and ways and means should be found to assist them to make the latter part of their lives just a little happier. Sir, the Government is in a position to do so. We do not know what the surplus will be but we on this side of the House certainly hope that any surplus that is available will be channeled towards assisting these people who are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet under present-day circumstances.

The hon. member for Umbilo, who has just sat down, who is a very moderate member of the Opposition and who usually puts his case very moderately, was this afternoon once more true to his Party’s standpoint, as manifested over the past 20 years or more and once again in the Second Reading debate and this afternoon in the Third Reading debate. In their amendment in the Second Reading debate and through the mouth of the hon. member who has just sat down, the Opposition again pleaded for greater assistance to people who have a fixed income, especially pensioners, and to farmers who are suffering hardships, but nowhere do they suggest where that extra money should come from.

Out of the surplus.

The answer of the hon. member is that it should come out of the surplus. I shall come back to that just now. I wonder where that surplus would have come from if we had paid heed to the pleas of the Opposition, because they are forever pleading for lower taxes.

And greater expenditure.

Sir, how many times have we had to listen here to pleas for less income tax? Does the Opposition want us to iron out the bulge in income tax payable on an income of R5,000 and more, and thereby collect less tax? Where will the surplus then come from? No, I do not believe that they are really serious when they plead for lower taxes, because then one cannot give greater benefits to people with fixed salaries and to farmers who are in difficulties, etc. If, then, one does not want to impose higher taxes to meet these needs, there is only one other way to make ends meet, and that is to pay lower salaries to the few hundred thousand public servants. If one gives greater benefits from this existing revenue, it surely goes without saying that the State must curtail its expenditure and then naturally one will have to pay one’s few hundred thousand public servants lower salaries. I do not believe for one moment that the Opposition wants us to go and tell the few hundred thousand public servants that the Opposition wants to give greater benefits to pensioners and that they should therefore be satisfied with lower salaries. I do not believe that that is the Opposition’s intention; they do not mean us to pay the public servants less: I also do not believe that they are merely joking when they speak of greater benefits for salaried workers and pensioners. I am becoming ever more convinced that when this Opposition pleads on the one hand for lower taxes, and on the other hand for increased benefits to pensioners, they are just plainly and simply being confoundedly irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, in every prosperous community, however prosperous it may be, you will always find certain people who are not satisfied with what they receive. You will always find people who want more, whether they deserve it or not, and by encouraging this attitude, by continually pleading for greater benefits without greater responsibility, the Opposition is committing treason in respect of the prosperity of South Africa. To plead for greater benefits for the less privileged is always very popular. To plead for greater benefits to farmers who are in difficulties and for higher salaries for labourers is very popular. The problem that we have with the Opposition is that they have been in opposition so long—almost 21 years—that we can only remind them with difficulty of what the position was when they were in power. As a matter of fact, I think that they themselves have forgotten what the position was like then, and therefore I think it would be a good thing if we reminded the Opposition of what the position was before 1948 in respect of pensions, about which the hon. member for Umbilo had so much to say. In 1948 when this Government came into power, an old-age pensioner received a pension of only R10 per month, not to mention other benefits which he receives to-day, such as a much lower means test and an extra allowance for the enfeebled aged, etc. Neither am I now even talking about that R10 extra which the hon. member spoke about a moment ago, the R10 extra which is an incentive for pensioners to remain in the labour market for a longer period. The hon. member said that we were doing nothing at all to encourage productivity. This is precisely an example of what we are doing to encourage productivity; because if that person, when he becomes 65 years of age, waits an additional five years and continues to work before applying for his pension, he obtains an extra R10 in pension when he does apply later. But I am not talking about all these extra benefits; I am merely speaking about the basic pension plus bonuses. It was R10 in 1948 and to-day it is R32. Now the Opposition will say: Yes, but what is our money worth to-day? Therefore I have made a small calculation on the basis of the facts supplied by the Director of Statistics to find out what we would have had to pay a pensioner to-day if we had adjusted his pension continually to the increase in the cost of living. In other words, how much money would we have had to pay him to-day if in real terms we wanted to pay him as much as in 1948? We find that from 1948 to 1958 the cost of living index increased by 48 per cent. From 1958 to 1968 it increased by a further 22 per cent, not on the 100 of 1948, but on the 148 of 1958. That is to say the cost of living increased from 1948 to 1968 by 80.56 per cent. Therefore, if we want to place that pensioner who obtained R10 a month in 1948 in the same position to-day, and to allow him to be able to buy just as much as he bought in 1948, then his pension to-day would have been 80 per cent greater than in 1948, i.e. R18. If we had adjusted his pension to the increase in the cost of living he ought to be getting R18 to-day, but instead of that this Government has gone as far as to give him R32, almost twice as much as the poor pensioner received in the time of the United Party Government. [Interjections.]

Are the hon. members asking whether I am satisfied that he receives R32 to-day? No, I should very much like to have given him R64 provided that the hon. members are willing to play along and tell me where we must get that money from. We should very much like to give every pensioner at least twice as much. While hon. members are now speaking about whom we should tax, I want to put forward a few positive ideas about fiscal policy and where we must get those taxes from.

It is no use taxing the United Party members, because there are too few of them.

The very first source of revenue which immediately comes to mind is income tax. The Opposition have repeatedly complained that our income tax is amongst the highest in the world. I do not agree with that, because it all depends on what additional forms of tax there are. In Britain and the United States, for example, there is such a heavy purchase tax that they can of necessity afford to make their income tax lower. I am not saying that they do so, but they could afford to make the income tax lower because they have a high purchase tax. But I nevertheless want to concede that our income tax is relatively high, especially in the groups earning R5,000 a year and more, because up to an income of R5,000 a year the maximum income tax notch applies only to the last R400, from R4,600 to R5,000. The maximum notch there is 10 per cent and thereafter the rate immediately increases by an additional 10 per cent from R5,000 to R6,000. For the next R1,000, from R6,000 to R7,000 it increases by an additional 9 per cent. This means that the rate increases by 19 per cent from the notch R5,000 to R7,000, which, in my opinion, is relatively high. The effect of this heavy taxation in the higher income group is unfortunate, because human nature being what it is, our people do not work to their full capacity. I recently heard about a certain professional man who now plays golf three afternoons a week, because he says that it does not pay him to work more. I could, of course, have suggested to that person what he should do in order not to pay such heavy taxes. He could, for example, have reduced his fees and then he would not have had to pay such heavy taxes. It is quite possible. The hon. member for Kensington laughs, but it is a very good solution to the problem. Thereby he is immediately doing his nation a good service. But in spite of this argument, I do want to concede that our income tax in higher notches is relatively high and therefore I do not believe that we should obtain additional taxes from this source in order to accommodate the pensioners and the other people that the Opposition wants to accommodate.

An additional source of revenue is, of course, company taxation. We may easily argue that companies make such large profits that we can assess them at a higher income tax rate, but this has the disadvantage of hampering those of us who must of necessity export in order to progress. Our ability to compete on the world markets will thereby be detrimentally affected. Therefore I do not want to plead for the exploitation of this source either, i.e. higher company tax, in order to obtain this greater revenue with which to accommodate pensioners and others.

There is much talk of a capital gains tax these days. In theory this is a very good thing, but, of course, it is very difficult to implement and there are quite a few problems attached to it. Apart from administrative problems, there is not, in my opinion, a great deal of money to be had from such a tax either, and therefore I now want to put forward my positive idea about where we can in fact obtain these additional funds. In my opinion the first source is a heavier tax on shares. At present the fax on shares is half a per cent for both buyer and seller. In my opinion we can increase it to 2 per cent, but if we increase it to I per cent for both buyer and seller, we shall thereby obtain a sizeable amount of money. At present about R50 million in shares are sold each week on the Stock Exchange. A tax of 1 per cent for both buyer and seller will bring in R50 million a year. An increase to 2 per cent will give us R100 million a year.

In the Second-Reading Debate the hon. Opposition had a great deal to say about the excessive speculation on the Stock Exchange at present. The hon. member for Pinetown, in particular, referred to this, and he asked that the hon. the Minister of Finance should warn much more strongly against this speculation. Well, my experience is that warnings simply have no effect, and if we look at what happened recently on the Stock Exchange, it is clear that warnings are to no avail. Something must be done, and I want to suggest a heavier tax on shares so that the speculator will pay that tax each time. The objection is raised that such a tax would have an adverse effect on legitimate investment and saving, but the legitimate investor who invests his money for five or ten years, will not be affected so seriously. If he leaves his money unrealized for 10 years with 1 per cent taxation he will forfeit only .2 per cent—i.e. one-fifth per cent—of his capital if he buys and sells once in ten years. The hon. member for Pinetown wants to restrain the speculator. The speculator who speculates with his money twice a month, or, to be conservative, five times a year, will have to pay a pretty penny in tax. If, for example, a speculator invests R1,000 and he does not make very much on it, he will, if he re-invests that R1,000 five times a year, have to pay as much as R100 in tax. He will have to pay tax every time he buys and sells. Can you see, Sir, how, in this way, we can kill two birds with one stone? On the one hand we restrain excessive speculation and on the other hand we give the Minister of Finance a handy sum of money which he can use, inter alia, for the hon. member for Umbilo’s sorely-afflicted pensioners.

In all humility I want to suggest another source and that is a purchase tax on luxury and semi-luxury goods, but definitely not on every-day necessities. If the rich man wants to buy his wife a diamond ring for R5,000, let him buy it, but let him at the same time pay tax on it. If he wants to buy his wife a very expensive fur coat every year, let him do so, but let him pay a heavy tax on it. In this way we shall collect enough money to supply relief to taxpayers who no longer want to work full time because they say that it does not pay to work harder. In this way we shall collect money with which to develop our country very rapidly into something fine and worthwhile. Let us always remember what that great statesman, Dr. D. F. Malan, once said, i.e.—

We can never become great if this Opposition continues to impress it upon certain people that they are receiving too little and ought to receive more. The Opposition promises that it will give more, but it will never be able to give more. As long as a person is holding out one hand to receive more, he is not working with both hands, and we can only become great if we use both hands to work harder. Then there will never be a shortage of funds to provide for the unfortunates in our community, our old-age pensioners. But then we must all be prepared to work harder so that there can be the necessary funds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise something that has nothing whatever to do with the furore which has been occupying this House for the last few weeks during my absence, and that is, of course, the defection of the hon. member for Umlazi to the Nationalist Party. I am in the fortunate position of a disinterested spectator, though I must admit I was astonished by this and it certainly confirmed the analogy of the Alice in Wonderland character of South African politics. The hon. member for Umlazi decided that the National Party has the answer to our racial problems, although in fact it can be shown that every single facet of the so-called ethical concept of separate development is a hollow mockery, and has indeed been so demonstrated. Meantime, I might say, at Newcastle the Official Opposition has been indulging in some rather silly tactics, tactics which used to be known as the “kafferboetie” tactics at elections. I must say if they carry on like this they are likely to find all the super-verkramptes of the National Party crossing the floor to join them. However, these tactics at Newcastle have had one good effect, for they did provoke the hon. the Minister of Labour into making what I consider to be the most sensible statement that I have ever heard from him. He talked about the “sheer idiocy” of trying to confine all the skilled and semi-skilled work to white hands. I must say I am very glad indeed to hear him use those words.

He is just getting ready to join your party.

Well, I must say I am very glad indeed to hear that. If those are his sentiments he would be very welcome indeed to join this party. He has changed his mind, I am glad to see, because not so long ago I seem to remember—I hope I am not doing him an injustice—that he reacted to a statement made by Dr. Norval on this very subject, that is the utilization of non-White labour resources. The hon. the Minister stated very firmly that over his dead body, or words to that effect, would non-Whites be allowed to do more skilled and semi-skilled work in the mines and elsewhere. Anyway, one is always glad to hear Ministers in very responsible positions changing their minds for the better on such important matters. I might say the hon. member for Durban (Point), who should reallly keep the minutes of his party councils private, I think, rather than inflicting them on this House, can rest assured that there is not the slightest danger that I will embarrass the hon. the Prime Minister by offering to join his caucus. Because despite all the high-falutin’ talk about “separate freedoms” and “independent Bantustans” in the unforeseeable future, I believe nothing can disguise the cruelties and the indignities inflicted on our non-Whites because of the Government’s racial policies.

You will not be accepted in our party.

I would not even attempt to join the National Party. I must say that I am heartily glad, having said that, to be exactly where I am, to be in a party which accepts the realities of South Africa, the multiracial realities. My party does not indulge in all this clap-trap about biological nations, or nationhoods, separate areas and so on, but it is a party which accepts the realities of South Africa as a multi-racial country, something it has always been and always will be. It is a party that accepts the consequences thereof and does not try to make political capital out of the prejudices of white voters. Most important of all, it is a party whose concept of national unity is the unity of all the races that live in South Africa. It is not a concept of national unity of the two white races ganging up together against the non-White races.

Now I want to come to the issue I really intend raising. That concerns the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I want to take you into my confidence, Mr. Speaker, by telling that this hon. Minister is my favourite Minister. [Laughter.] Of course, some of my best friends are Ministers.

Hundreds of them!

Hundreds of my best friends are Ministers. But the favourite of all, the best friend among all my best friends among the Ministers, is the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He has some very endearing qualities, mostly that of a small boy I might say, standing in front of a chained dog at a very safe distance and making rude noises. Then the hon. the Minister bolts before he is called to account for his actions. He has made a lot of rash and reckless statements in his time in this House, particularly since he was elevated, firstly to the position of Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and now, of course, to his elevated post as full Minister of Community Development. I seem to remember him telling us that he would resign from Parliament or resign his seat in the Cabinet if he failed to remove Africans in considerable numbers from the white areas long before the deadline of 1978, which was laid down by the late Dr. Verwoerd. An now, with a deep sigh of relief I have no doubt, he has managed to remove himself rapidly from that particular post and cannot be held accountable for the promise which he then made. He has now left that baby with the hon. member for Primrose, the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He has to deal with that. I only hope for his sake that the new Deputy Minister is more sensible and that he does not come out with these rash and reckless statements about what he will do if he does not accomplish certain quite impossible feats within a certain time limit. The Minister of Community Development has made some more extravagant statements recently, this time in his new capacity. I really hope he is going to be around to account for his future actions in view of the statements he has made in this capacity; in other words, that he will not be moving to another post before he is called to account.

There is a limit even to my promotion!

There is no limit at all. That is one of the things I was just thinking about. He might become Prime Minister long before he could be held accountable for these reckless promises.

The latest reckless statement he has made concerns the Indian community of South Africa. This sad minority of people rests in his tender care now. They are people who have been here for over 100 years. They and their ancestors have been law-abiding citizens and have served South Africa well. They have been an industrious people. Indeed, they have helped many a white citizen in this country out of a tight spot in the days of depression. The hon. the Minister, if he has been correctly reported, told the congress of municipal associations in the Transvaal in October last that—

I was very glad to hear that; but unfortunately, what is Government policy as far as words are concerned, does not appear to be Government policy as far as the practical implementation of that policy is concerned. But three months later the hon. the Minister went a little further. He issued a challenge in Die Beeld to anybody to produce even one Indian trader who was in a worse position than he had been in because of the Group Areas Act. Of course, various people produced such Indian traders. The Sunday Times came up with a long list, having spoken to numerous Indian traders in the time at their disposal. I might say a lot of people are frightened to speak, because they are intimidated in this country. They get visits.

Nonsense!

They get unwelcome visits. In this country, if one is a non-White and one speaks up against the Government, one can be pretty sure to get an unwelcome visit from the Special Branch quite soon afterwards. The hon. the Minister must know, surely, that in every city, town and drop all over South Africa, over the last 20 years under the Group Areas Act, Indians have been slowly but surely dispossessed of their homes and their businesses. If they are not moved some 20 miles out of town, as was the case in Johannesburg, as far as their homes are concerned, then in the little towns throughout South Africa they are moved two or three miles out of the town, away from the national road, from the centre of the town where they earn their livelihood, from farmers coming in to purchase over weekends, from the African population that comes in to buy from them. They have been moved off the main routes across the railway tracks, out of sight.

Where?

In Ventersdorp, Rustenburg, Nylstroom, in practically every town or drop that one might care to mention throughout the whole of South Africa.

You would not let us remove them to Houghton!

Why does the Government not leave them where they are? That is the burning question, leave them where they are because that is where they want to be, where they have been trading for all these years. I might say that when they are forced to move, they receive not one penny of goodwill for their businesses. They are forced to sell their properties at valuations far below the amount which those properties could realize if they were sold at the real market value. I might say that where they stay on uneasily under permit in their businesses, they cannot improve or expand those businesses. They are slowly dying, and the Indian community is only too aware of the situation. If this does not spell ruin and the loss of livelihood. I wonder what does, in the terminology of the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

You bring me one ruined Indian!

I can bring him hundreds of cases, and he knows it. What is more, it does not only spell ruin to the Indians; it spells greed on the part of the Whites. There are many cases, and Judges in our courts have, in fact, commented on this, where Indians have been forced to sell to the Group Areas Board and the Community Development Board at prices far below what they would have received on the open market. If they happen to sell privately, they have to pay a great percentage of the additional money which they receive, over and above the valuation of the Community Board; they have to pay an appreciation allowance to the Community Board.

Nonsense!

Let me give the hon. the Minister one example. He knows this one very well, namely the recent example in Rustenburg, where properties were acquired from Indian owners through the Group Areas Board.

You are talking nonsense! Not a single property has been acquired by the Group Areas Board,

There are properties that were acquired two years ago. Does the hon. the Minister not know his portfolio? They were acquired for R73,000, because they have been told that they were going to have to move. Those properties were resold less than two years afterwards for nearly R¼ million. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

I do not want to continue on the Rustenburg situation. Whether they were acquired by private persons or by the Board itself, the fact remains that those people knew they had to sell. These were forced sales. The Whites who acquired those properties, were able to resell later for nearly R¼ million. I do not want to go into the Rustenburg situation any further, because I know that the hon. the Minister is at the moment reconsidering the whole position of the Rustenburg Indians. I do not want anything that I say to-day to rouse him to such heights of indignation that he will no longer reconsider this matter. So I do not want to say anything further, although I have a great deal of information in that regard. And I hope he is going to see his way clear to grant the Rustenburg Indians a small corner in the town that they have asked for. These people have been there since the days of Paul Kruger.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon. the Minister would stop mumbling at me. He will have an opportunity to reply later. To return to these highly questionable procedures of the board. I say it is high time that a whole inquiry was instituted into the profits that have been made by the Community Development Board out of forced sales by Indians and Coloured people. Enormous profits are made when those properties are resold to private individuals. Now I want to come to the hon. the Minister’s other pronouncement which he is also supposed to have made at Warmbaths, I must say very aptly, because I think this little statement got him into plenty of hot water. He said that the Indians must diversify their occupations. They must branch out into other occupations and become clerks, roadworkers, fitters and turners. He said—

He then threatened to force the Indians into other occupations if they did not heed his advice. He threatened to reconsider the whole matter in regard to the granting of trading licences. Now, if one accepts as I do that the hon. the Minister is an intelligent man …

Oh no!

Oh yes, he is. I think he is one of the best destructive debaters in Parliament. That is only my own personal opinion. I think he is an intelligent man. I can only ascribe this statement of his either to utter cynicism or to ignorance. It is not lack of intelligence. He either does not know the position or he is completely cynical. It will be interesting if he would tell me which of the two it is. First of all, does he not know that no new licences at all have been granted to Indians since 1950? Does he not know that in Johannesburg alone something like 700 trading licences have been suspended owing to the Group Areas Act and the slum clearances, and so on? Does he know that according to the 1960 census over 70 per cent of the Indians are in fact in occupations other than trade? Will the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us what he intends doing about removing all the restrictions and barriers that actually hinder Indians from entering occupations other than trade and from becoming skilled or semi-skilled workers? Is the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who is so anxious to see Indians diversify their occupations, going to do his utmost to convince the hon. the Minister of Labour that he should forthwith remove all job reservations that apply to Indians and if not, why not, in view of what he has said? Is he going to exert his not inconsiderable energies to persuade white employers and white trade unionists to remove the customary colour bar, to bend the customary colour bar, so that Indian youths can become apprentices and journeymen, and if not, why not? Has he for instance contacted the Motor Industries Employees’ Association and asked them to withdraw the directive that they quite recently gave to their members, namely not to take on non-white members as apprentices and certainly not to allow Indians to come into that occupation? Is he going to do something about finding jobs for matriculated Indian youths? Will he try and persuade the hon. the Minister of Labour to put up more educational and vocational training institutions for Indians? Does he know that there is not a single vocational school for Indians in the Transvaal, for instance? What is he going to do about the introduction of compulsory and free education for Indians throughout the country? Because, on all these factors depends the Indian’s ability to move out of trade into other occupations. Is he going to do something about persuading his colleagues in the Cabinet to remove the restrictions against Indians undertaking agriculture or to do something about repealing the Gold law, or the Mines and Works Act, which does not allow Indians to do skilled jobs on the mines?

He will not succeed.

Of course he will not succeed. But why then does he make this ridiculous statement that he wants Indians to move out of these occupations?

[Inaudible.]

All sorts of job reservations, the Mines and Works Act, and all sorts of things.

The Mines and Works Act is only confined to blasting certificates.

Well, that is quite important. How many Indians are employed on the mines? Will he persuade the Mineworkers’ Union not to walk out on strike if the mines take on Indian skilled workers? Will he do something about that? Will the hon. the Minister of Transport, who has been so vocal in this respect, tell us how many Indians he is going to employ as skilled workers on the Railways?

There are quite a number employed in Natal.

Quite. Let him continue to employ more. I am all for it. I do not take the U.P. line that he is taking the bread out of the mouths of white workers when he takes on non-white workers in skilled and semiskilled occupations on the Railways. I am delighted. He does not have to make explanations to me, Sir. What he has to explain to me is why he does not take on more non-Whites.

Raise that during my debate and I will reply to the hon. member.

I will. I have every intention of doing so. Do not worry. I will devote all my attention to the hon. the Minister’s Vote when it comes up. But I am at the moment challenging the hon. the Minister of Community Development to tell me what efforts he is going to make to remove all the restrictions and inhibitions that face the Indians who want to go into other occupations. This is the crux of the matter. It is no good standing up and ranting at congresses about a minority group that have got no rights of any kind. They certainly have no rights of franchise whereby they can in any way show the hon. the Minister what they think of what he said. This is the way he should do it if he really intends to do something practical about it. He must take the steps that I have mentioned already.

Now, what interests me too is the hon. the Minister’s explanation of his original statement. Having made this silly statement about being sick and tired of seeing Indian youths sitting behind counters and all that, he then was taken to task on this and he then made an explanation. His explanation was that it was only well-intentioned advice. Well-intentioned advice, he said, similar to the advice given to Afrikaners in the 1930’s. Now honestly, has anybody ever heard of a more specious explanation than that? Does the hon. the Minister forget what efforts were made to help the Afrikaners in the thirties? The whole of the civilized labour policy was designed to take non-Whites out of employment and to replace them with Whites who were suffering all the effects of the agricultural depression of the thirties. Has he forgotten that? Has he forgotten that there were no restrictions ever placed on Afrikaners who wished to move from the rural areas into the towns? But Indians to-day are under provincial restrictions. They cannot move from one province to another without getting a special permit. Even to-day no Indian is allowed to reside in the Orange Free State at all.

Hear, hear!

‘“Hear, hear!” say these upholders of Western civilization. “Hear, hear!” they say. I wonder if the hon. members from Natal say “Hear, hear!” On the contrary, there must be some deep inner conflict in the National Party on this issue, because the Natal members surely want to get rid of their Indians but the Orange Free State members will not take them. So there we are. There were no restrictions on the mobility of Afrikaners. There was free and compulsory education. Vocational training schools were provided. Every effort was made to raise the status of the unfortunate men who came in from the rural areas without a trade, unable to earn a living and not able to speak what was then the commercial language of the cities. Every effort was made to help them and quite rightly so. Because, no country is rich in any respect, morally, spiritually or in any other way, which was referred to by the hon. member who has jus sat sown, unless it makes every effort to lift the standard of living of all the people residing in the country. But in the case of the Indians there is no free and compulsory education. There are few vocational training establishments and no efforts are made to place these youths in employment. There are all sorts of legal restrictions against their entering certain occupations. There are job reservations. There are other restrictions like the Mines Act, the Gold Act, the Agricultural Act of the Transvaal, all of which make it extremely difficult for the Indians to enter these other occupations. The hon. the Minister must please stop uttering these absurd statements unless he is prepared to do something practical about them. What was done for the Afrikaners in the thirties was done for them, correctly I maintain, and has made all the difference to the development of this country, let alone to the Afrikaners themselves, and should be done for the non-White groups of this country. It was done for Afrikaners because they were voters and because they were in the majority.

They therefore had an influence over the political power structure of this country. The same thing, willy nilly, must obviously be done for them despite the fact that the Indians are a minority in South Africa and have no voting rights whatsoever. And therefore, since I am always an optimist, I hoped that with this new Minister of Community Development we might see a new future for the Indian people in this country. And I still have not given up hope, because, as I said originally, the hon. the Minister is basically an intelligent person and I am quite sure that when he really studies this situation as it applies to Indians in the Transvaal, and elsewhere in South Africa, he will see that it is no use simply longing for them to diversify occupations unless he himself in his position of considerable power and influence over the community itself and in the Cabinet, does everything that he can to raise the standard of living of the people who find themselves under his care. The same applies to the Coloured people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to speak here in this House for the first time. After to-day I shall definitely be able to give some more attention to more aspects of my work than the preparation of maiden speeches and I shall definitely be able to enjoy my stay in the Cape more. Allow me on this occasion to pay tribute to the memory of a very good friend, one who represented the constituency of Graaff-Reinet with distinction, and who, I have learned from various of his ex-colleagues, was a well-loved person in this House, something to which all the constituents in Graaff-Reinet can bear witness. I therefore find this a fitting occasion to pay tribute to the memory of Norrie Steyn and to declare that it is an honour for me to take his place here.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a great privilege for me to be able to represent, in this House, Graaff-Reinet with its colourful history. What makes the privilege all the more pleasant is the fact that I was returned unopposed. This is a gesture of confidence on the part of the constituents of Graaff-Reinet, and these constituents include prominent people, even the hon. members for Newton Park and Walmer. I shall therefore try to be worthy of the confidence which the constituents of Graaff-Reinet have placed in me. I think that it is also expected of me as the baby of this House, in the true traditions of a baby, to wet this side of the House with a few more Nationalist sentiments (hierdie kant van die Raad ’n bietjie nat te maak).

Mr. Speaker, the whole of my constituency was—please note I am saying “was”—situated in a disastrous drought area. It was certainly very dry in the constituency of Graaff-Reinet. It was so dry that we no longer had any milk for our babies and simply gave them powdered milk, which had the advantage that we did not need to dry them, but could simply dust them. So it is only logical that in the course of this maiden speech I should refer to this disaster which came upon the Karoo areas, and the effects it had on the constituency, as well as to its possible rehabilitation. I am definitely not going to speak like a man devoid of hope, because a Karoo farmer is never devoid of hope. As a result of his ties with the soil he lives very close to nature, and because he lives close to nature he believes that the Creator never abandons that which He has created. Mr. Speaker, I am very closely connected with the wool industry of South Africa; in fact, my constituency is largely dependent on the wool industry for its livelihood. It is therefore understandable that in this House I shall speak about the wool industry from time to time, mainly because of the fact that this industry occupies such an important place in the economy of this country as the largest source of foreign exchange after gold. Over the past few years this industry has definitely experienced very difficult times, especially as a result of decreasing prices and increasing production costs, which have drastically reduced the incomes of the farmers. Debt burdens as a result of fodder and production loans have increased tremendously and we can accept it as a fact that a large percentage of our wool farmers in this country have landed in a financial crisis.

The international textile industry experienced the worst years in its existence during 1966 and 1967. However, at this stage there is every indication that the position is rapidly recovering and that the positive publicity and research of the three member countries through the International Wool Secretariat are beginning to bear fruit. There is proof that the woolmark programme, with everything it stands for, will restore the one-time confidence of millions of consumers throughout the world in the quality fibre. The general spirit of optimism among the major manufacturers in Europe, the United Kingdom, as well as perhaps Japan in particular, is reflected in the price increases during the present season. Wool is therefore maintaining its position against its artificial fibre competitors, which are still showing a downward trend. Against this background we must therefore evaluate our future. We will have to take into consideration certain important factors in order at least to bring about stability in the production side of the industry. Since my arrival here, the present position has already been stated by several speakers on both sides of this House. Some of them expressed responsible opinions, but some of the opinions were perhaps not so responsible. However, let me make this clear: It is an urgent necessity that everyone should work and think in unison to overcome this crisis. My opinion is that under such circumstances it is easy to criticize, but it is not as easy to find solutions to the numerous problems. Only a positive approach will produce solutions, and this problem will call for positive thinking from everyone who is interested in the industry, and others as well. We are grateful for the numerous measures already taken to try to alleviate the position. We shall probably still make proposals to the hon. the Minister from time to time, which we hope he will consider favourably. However, we shall have to continue believing that further general rains in these areas over a long period will bring a lasting solution to this problem and this crisis.

The period of rehabilitation after the rain is perhaps the most important. During this period the main task will be reclamation. In other words, the re-establishment of permanent vegetation will be the main task of every farmer who is interested in this. Therefore we are so profoundly grateful for the establishment of the veld reclamation scheme. I am convinced that this step will, in the long run, prove to be the most positive in our soil conservation efforts. I want to predict that the temporary reduction which will come about as a result of the veld reclamation scheme, is perhaps going to become a permanent reduction.

Financial measures will also have to be taken, during the rehabilitation period, gradually to reduce the debt burdens which accumulated as a result of the long drought. Long-term consolidation of debts will be necessary, especially to carry the veld reclamation scheme through to its logical conclusion. During the period after rehabilitation we shall have to take stock for the future of certain irrefutable facts. Droughts will come again, and we will have to get away from the age-old practice of regarding the above average years as the average. What we must do is to bring together the above average and below average in order to obtain the norm according to which our farming patterns and practices must be organized. Soil conservation deserves the serious attention of every farmer in this country, especially in the small-stock areas and above all in the Karoo areas. We have spoken about soil conservation too long and too much patience has been exercised with the wasteful exploiter. If coercive measures have to be instituted for the sake of soil conservation, we as leaders of the nation must not shrink from our prime responsibility, the conservation of our heritage. The reduction of the number of stock on a permanent basis appears to be another measure which will have to be taken. As I have already said, I believe that the veld reclamation scheme is going to accomplish it to a large extent. Nevertheless I think that a general revision of the district plans of our soil conservation districts is necessary. Optimum feeding ensures maximum production and we may find that there is no drastic decrease in production, and not even a decrease worth mentioning, if the numbers of stock are reduced. With proper feeding and breeding it is definitely possible to increase our production per grazing unit. If Australia could do it we in this country can also do it. As a result of lower wool prices, lower than those we have been used to in the past, we will have to be prepared to do everything we can to keep production costs as low as possible. In this connection I think that co-operative utilization of labour and expensive machines can be fruitfully investigated. The tendency among stock farmers to regard every new and expensive remedy which appears on the market as the alpha and omega as far as stock diseases are concerned, will have to be counteracted. There must first be a thorough scientific investigation to see whether the new and expensive remedy will indeed be more effective than the cheaper one which is going to be abandoned.

As far as the future is concerned, we will have to bear in mind that the days of farming without a proper or even a minimum of scientific background, are past. Prospective young farmers will have to realize that only by proper training and with at least a minimum of scientific background can they make a success of this industry which is so very important to us.

Then there is the utilization of water. Mr. Speaker, this drought has once more shown us how extremely important it is to make the best possible use of our available water. This matter goes hand in hand with the building up of fodder banks. This will have to be given due consideration in our soil conservation plans. In my constituency there are two State dams—the Vanryneveld Pass Dam and the Beerylei Dam. With water from the Orange River in these dams they offer an unlimited potential for fodder cultivation. With water from the Orange River in these two dams I can assure you that the depopulation process in those areas will be reversed. Consequently I shall find it necessary in future to make earnest pleas to the Minister from time to time, especially on behalf of the small-stock industry, to bring water to this area.

But in my constituency it is not only the farmer who is experiencing difficulties. I can assure hon. members that the retailers are also having a hard time, because if the farmer experiences difficulties, then everyone who lives there experiences difficulties. The smooth tarred roads to our cities are perhaps another contributory factor in the difficulties experienced by our retailers. These days it is very easy, and perhaps profitable, to drive along these smooth tarred roads to the city and to do one’s shopping there. I feel that the possibility of large-scale co-operative purchases may also be investigated so that retailers may enjoy the benefit of prices which are competitive with those of their rivals in the cities. I am aware that some hon. members will say that my speech could have been held at the opening of a farmers’ day or a show. That may be so, but hon. members should rather regard it as an honest attempt to affirm my unshakeable confidence in the future of this industry and in the future of the Karoo. Hon. members should also regard it as an attempt to remove the unrest in the mind of my son and of many young prospective farmers, so that they may have no fear in entering the oldest and the most interesting profession in the world.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet on his election and on the extremely fine speech he made. The hon. member said that hon. members would perhaps think that he should rather have made his speech at the opening of a show or a congress, but I can assure him that he could have made that speech anywhere because it remained a brilliant speech. The hon. member made an extremely fine speech.

There is another hon. member who must also be congratulated this afternoon, and that is the hon. member for Walmer. As an inhabitant of Graaff-Reinet the hon. member for Walmer now has a brilliant representative in this House. He has a far more brilliant representative than the constituency of Walmer has in this House. I want to tell the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that we have already had namesakes of his in this House. I still remember George Hayward and the late Flippie Hayward. I did not always agree with the politics of one of them, but if he is as worthy an hon. member as those two gentlemen were he will go far in this House. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has a brilliant career ahead of him. I want to wish him every success for the future.

I come now to the hon. member for Houghton. In the first place I want to say to the hon. member that I am glad she is completely well again. We are pleased to see her back in the House. I also want to tell her that it was not really necessary for her to state her love for me right out in public. We all like her, but in the political sphere it could mean the kiss of death. But nobody really takes her very seriously. She made her usual inflammatory speech. It was an irresponsible and also a slightly spiteful speech. I think the hon. member has had the wind taken out of her sails a bit because she is beginning to realize more and more that the Indians are co-operating with this Government more and more and that they are to a lesser and lesser extent listening to her inflammatory nonsense. We are reestablishing the Indians and the Coloureds in South Africa under more favourable circumstances than the Indians are living in any other country in the world, including India itself. The same applies to the Coloureds. But when we remove Indians from backward areas, from the most awful living conditions imaginable, and settle them in decent townships, that hon. member comes forward with the story that we are uprooting them; that we are committing cruelties and indignities against them because we are giving them better housing, because we are removing them from the poor conditions under which they are living to-day. I want to tell that hon. member what I have told her so often before: I do not take her seriously; she is not a person who would like to live together with Indians and Coloureds, but she can buy her apartheid. Sir, in the days when I served on the Provincial Council the authorities wanted to lay out Coloured sports grounds near Houghton, and there was not a single member of her Party who did not sign a petition to the effect that this must not happen.

Then the hon. member talks about “this poor minority”. I shall indicate to her in a moment how this “poor minority” is faring in South Africa under the National Government and under the policy of apartheid, and with the application of the policy of group areas, which is to the advantage of the Indians and the Coloureds in South Africa. The hon. member for Port Natal stated the other day that we had already removed 700,000 Indians and Coloureds. “Removed” is of course a ridiculous word to use in this case. These are people who are being resettled. I challenge the hon. member for Port Natal, and I challenge the hon. member for Houghton to show me one single Indian or Coloured who wants to return to the conditions in which they were.

Oh, come on!

It will not help the hon. member to say “oh, come on”; I shall furnish her with examples in a moment. We are bearing the same outcry now in regard to District Six, in regard to the Coloureds who have to be moved out and the Whites who are going to move in there. That is precisely the same kind of propaganda we were treated to in the past in regard to Sophiatown and the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown to Meadowlands, sir, then you also heard about the “uprooting of these people”; then you also heard about the terrible cruelties which were being committed against these people. I am now asking the hon. member for Houghton to bring me one Bantu in Meadowlands who wants to return to those sordid conditions. We cleared Sophiatown, where the most sordid slum conditions were prevailing, and standing there today is the model town of Triomf; the Bantu have been resettled in Meadowlands; they have been resettled in decent houses under hygienic conditions, and the hon. member, with all her incitement, with all her liberalists and all her communists and all her Huddlestons, will not be able to find ten Bantu in Meadowlands who want to return to Sophiatown.

That is nonsense. Everyone that lost his freehold title would prefer Sophiatown.

Sir, I am asking the United Party, I am asking the hon. member for Rosettenville: Does he want to reverse the Sophiatown-Meadowlands process? Does he want a return to those conditions? It will not avail him to sit looking at me so innocently. They are the people who at that time opposed the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown to Meadowlands. Their city council opposed it to such an extent that the then Minister of Native Affairs, as he was called then, was compelled to establish his own local authority, i.e. the Resettlement Board, in order to do so. At that time they opposed us officially; they did not want us to do that, and I now want to ask them whether they want to reverse that process.

Sir, let us go further. I want to say a few words about the Coloureds, but more particularly about the Indians. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned Rustenburg. She must get her facts straight. The Group Development Board has not yet purchased a single erven in Rustenburg. The erven which was sold for R73,000 was sold to a private person. We had nothing to do with it. What the hon. member did not mention was that shortly afterwards the Saambou Building Society purchased an erven from an Indian in Rustenburg for R200,000. But it was not us. There were no forced sales; these were free sales. She knows that there were no forced sales. She knows how land is expropriated. If those people do not want to accept our offers they need not do so. We must then proceed to arbitration. Does she want to tell me that arbitration in this country is unfair?

[Inaudible.]

Does she want to tell me that the Arbitration Act and the Expropriation Act in South Africa are unfair? That is the most nonsensical thing in the world to say. I shall come in a moment to the financial position of the Indians and indicate how it has developed under this Government. Sir, I just want to say this about Rustenburg: I am quite satisfied that there is sufficient commercial potential in the new Indian group area and that all the Indian traders there will be able to make as good a living there as they are making to-day.

They will disagree with you.

But did she submit any representations to me? Oh no. For the hon. member it is simply a platform for propaganda. Adv. Muller submitted representations to me on their behalf; the hon. member for Von Brandis submitted representations on their behalf. I am prepared to consider any representations, although I have no doubt whatsoever that the position in Rustenburg is a sound one as far as the Indians are concerned, and is going to be considerably better during the next few years than it is to-day. The hon. member need not pretend to be so all-knowing. I am telling her now that this is the position. Sir, we have never yet removed a single Indian trader to a place where he could not make as good a living as the one he was making before.

How can you talk such nonsense?

I am now asking the hon. member for Houghton: Why should I do this to the Indians of Rustenburg? Why am I not doing this to the Indians of Vereeniging? Why am I not doing this to the Indians of Klerks-dorp? Why am I not doing this to the Indians of all the other towns? What preferential treatment should the other Indians receive in contrast to the Indians of Rustenburg? The only reason why we are taking steps in Rustenburg is because there is commercial potential for them. But let us consider in what way we resettled the Indians.

They do not think so.

The Indians do think so. What does the hon. member for Port Natal know about this position? Sir, I shall go a little further into the position of the Indian trader in a moment. I first want to say this in regard to Indian residential areas: We have succeeded in resettling 50 per cent of the Indians in their group areas, and if everything proceeds normally we will have accomplished full resettlement within the next seven years. We have towns such as Lenasia. Laudium near Pretoria, Roshnee near Vereeniging. Sir, I am asking the hon. member for Port Natal: Does he want to imply that there are Indians who want to be moved from Laudium back to Prinsloo Street?

What does he know about the place?

Does he want to imply that there are Indians who are now living in Roshnee, which is a model township, who want to be moved back to the backyards in Vereeniging? The same applies to the Indians in Lenasia. The hon. member stated that “they were dispossessed of their homes”. Mr. Speaker, any person who states that a single Indian in South Africa “was dispossessed of his home” is speaking the most arrant malicious nonsense in the world. We simply do not allow an Indian to be removed from his present home unless we can remove him to a better home.

Twenty miles out of town.

I just want to refer to the number of houses which have been built during the past few years.

Come and hold a meeting at Durban and then you will hear the truth.

The hon. member is talking about Durban; I shall read out to him in a moment something in regard to Durban’s Indians, but I shall read out something else to him immediately: I have here a complaint that the Indians in Durban are swamping the Whites, and do you know from whom this complaint comes? Not from the verkramptes and the National Party; it comes from the Durban and District Meat Traders’ Association. They want me to remove the Indians from Durban because the Indians are ruining them. These are the English pals of that hon. member, these are his voters who are pleading in my ears. Sir, I just want to tell you what we have already done for the Indians since 1960.

Read that letter.

I shall read it in a moment, with the greatest pleasure, if I have time, and the hon. member will not feel so happy about it. Towards the end of September 1968, we had already resettled 17,720 Indian families, and every one of them is living under better conditions to-day than they were living under before.

Why do you not give them an option?

We resettled 58,000 Coloured families, and every one of them is living in a better house than they were living in before. Between 1960 and 1968 we built 25,160 houses for Indians. It was done by my Department and local authorities. There are 1,500 houses which the Indians built themselves, and each of these houses is better than the house which was previously occupied by those Indians. We built 51,800 houses for Coloureds and each one of those houses is better than the one they occupied before. This is how these people are being suppressed!

I take back what I said about your being intelligent.

Order!

What is the position in regard to Indian business concerns? The hon. member spoke about Indians who have been ruined. She was probably referring to the ridiculous list which appeared in the Sunday Times. I had every one of those cases investigated. There are of course Indians who go bankrupt, for many reasons, just as there are Whites who go bankrupt, just as there are Jews who go bankrupt, just as there are Englishmen who go bankrupt and just as there are political parties that go bankrupt. Of the 18 cases they mentioned there were two whose creditors were giving them a rough time, and who remained where they were, and not one of those who had been removed was in a worse financial position than he had been in before the removal. These are the examples which were mentioned; I had every one of them investigated. The hon. member can bluff other people, but she cannot bluff me. Sir, I have already stated what the policy of the Government is. We will not deprive a single Indian of his livelihood in South Africa. Where there is no commercial potential in the Indian group areas we place them in business residential areas within the white area, in conjunction with the local authority, the Chambers of Commerce, the Sakekamers and the Indians. We establish them there, and we have already done so with a very great deal of success. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth is sitting here and he can testify to the fact that we have built business centres for them in Port Elizabeth. We are at present doing the same in Klerksdorp. We have done the same in Bronkhorstspruit. We have done the same at various other places, and the Indians are perfectly happy there. Of course it is quite possible for one to say that all the Indians in Johannesburg should go and trade in Lenasia, but we are taking steps in cooperation with the Johannesburg City Council. For once in their lives they were sensible, and I think the United Party was being sensible when it kicked Ismay out as well; he was worthless. His inability to speak both languages is most certainly not his greatest weakness. He is a good old pal of mine but … We are now, in conjunction with the Johannesburg City Council, the Chambers of Commerce, the Sakekamers and the Indian Association in Fordsburg going to build a business centre for the Indians, a business centre which will cost us R10 million. That is what we are doing for the Indians.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to this accusation that we are oppressing the Indians, that we are depriving them of their trading rights and that we are ruining them to such a terrible extent. In 1957 the Receiver of Revenue decided to classify taxable income on a racial basis—Coloureds, Bantu and Asiatics. In 1957 the taxable income of the Whites was R887 million, and in 1966 R3,119 million, an increase of approximately 350 per cent. But what was the taxable income of Asiatics? These are the poor oppressed people whom we are depriving of their trading rights and who are being ruined. In 1957 the taxable income of Asiatics was R14.3 million; in 1966 it was R60.6 million, an increase not of 350 per cent, but of 420 per cent. That is how they are being suppressed here in South Africa! But I want to say this to the hon. member for Houghton. Here I have a letter from a very eminent Indian, a member of the Indian Council, and I am reading it to indicate the general attitude we find amongst Indians of South Africa to-day towards this Government.

Mr. Joosub.

No, it is not Mr. Joosub. Mr. Joosub should not have such a great deal to say to the Rand Daily Mail. It would be much better for him. No, I am talking about Mr. Govadia of Bethal. He is a member of the Indian Council. Mr. Joosub is of course also amicably disposed towards us, but he is fighting for the interests of the Indians, which I do not take amiss of him. This is what Mr. Govadia wrote to me with reference to my attitude towards the Indians of Heidelberg—

And that is why she is angry.

I want to conclude by saying something further about the need for the Indians to diversify. What was stated in the Rand Daily Mail that I had supposedly said that “Indians must get out of commerce” is the most arrant nonsense in the world. Only a fool would say a thing like that. What I said to the Indians was that they should diversify to a greater extent because they had done so in Natal, but in the Transvaal we cannot deny that 90 per cent of the Indians are still in commerce. I said that they must diversify as far as they could, and the other day we discussed with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Indian Affairs what we could do to help them to diversify to a greater extent. I now want to tell the hon. member for Houghton what our Department is doing, and doing successfully. [Interjections.] I am sorry that I cannot reply to that question, because I only have twenty minutes. I just want to show how we are trying to help the Indians to diversify.

I have now given instructions to the effect that in every Indian group area, where it is in any way possible, certain areas of land must be set aside for industrial development; and we are doing this with great success. There is a great deal of industrial development among the Indians in Natal. We have now set aside this large area at Lenasia for industrial development, and three Indian factories have already been erected there in which Indians are working; we are now going to set aside industrial land in all the Indian group areas where it is in any way possible so that they can diversify in that direction. The position is that the Government is now beginning to get results. Virtually all the group areas have now been declared. To declare a group area is one thing. That is not my work but that of the Department of Planning. But to develop group areas is considerably more difficult, and we have now succeeded in resettling 50 per cent of the Indians as far as residential areas are concerned, and I have every confidence that within seven years, according to a survey, all of them will have been resettled. As far as Indian businesses are concerned, we are engaged on a programme which satisfies the white traders, which satisfies the Sakekamers and which satisfies the Chambers of Commerce, and which also satisfies the Indians—and hence the increase in their taxable income. This Government is being fair towards the Indians, and I want to say to the hon. member that with all her malicious propaganda she will not succeed in breaking down the conviction which is taking root and which is quite correct, i.e. that the Indians and the Coloureds and the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa are better off than in any other part of the world, and that is why she is so spiteful.

I do not want to be involved in the private squabble between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Houghton, because it very often happens that people of the opposite sex who are particularly fond of each other do have quarrels, but they usually make them up again. But I am quite prepared to accept that there will be more quarrels between these two hon. members in future; I do not think they will ever see eye to eye. I do not want to talk about the Indian question, but I do want to say that this Government has had the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book for some 20 years and I understand that there are still Indians in Grey Street in Durban who do not know what is going to happen. It does not seem as if there is much “kragdadigheid” in this Government in this respect, as it is in so many other respects, including agriculture.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet on an excellent speech. He chose subjects, with which he is very well versed. He knows what he is talking about and he obviously knows something about the position of agriculture in this country. He told us about the wool industry and told us that the wool farmer was passing through a critical stage, and he felt it was his duty to draw the Government’s attention to that. He then went on to speak about soil conservation, or the lack of it, that is taking place, the destruction of our veld, etc., and he drew the Government’s attention to that. In other words, the only difference is that it is a speech typical of this side of the House, a speech such as those we make to draw the Government’s attention to the position. We have had little successes here and there, but the Government still does not do sufficient to counteract these things. I hope the speech the hon. member made here to-day will assist us on this side of the House to draw the Government’s attention to the serious position of the farmers, especially the wool farmers, and also to soil conservation.

Now it is customary in debates of this nature for hon. members opposite to thank the Minister. It is not usual for us on this side to do so, because we have very little to thank them for. Occasionally they do a little thing for which we are grateful, but as a rule there is very little for which we can thank the Minister. However, on this occasion I want to thank a Minister. I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to thank him for making a change in regard to the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture. I hope that the previous Deputy Minister will be happy in his new post as Deputy Minister of Transport. I do not think he was happy in his previous post, and the farmers were certainly very unhappy with him as Deputy Minister of Agriculture, as I think he knows very well.

Then I want to congratulate the new Deputy Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Standerton. I think he is a member who is a first-class farmer and therefore I think he has a first-class knowledge of farming, and judging by the speech he made the other day I am sure he has that knowledge. I think he should be a tremendous improvement on the previous Deputy Minister. For that we want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister and we look to him for vast improvements in agriculture in this country. I hope he will succeed in prodding the present Minister to do far more than is being done at present.

I want to express my sympathy with the farmers for the period they have gone through and the drought they have suffered. We are all very thankful for the rains that fell recently, but the farmers have passed through a very difficult period. Large numbers of them have suffered terrific losses and I have no doubt that many of them will probably be forced off the land as the result of the drought and will have to seek work elsewhere. We want to express our sympathy with them. I also want to express my sympathy with the farmers, in the second place, for having a very unsympathetic Government. A week or two ago the hon. the Minister said in this House that it was not necessary for him to express his sympathy with the farmers because of the drought because they show their sympathy by deeds. But I have an idea that the hon. the Minister is somewhat out of touch with the farmers of this country, and I hope the new Deputy Minister, who I do not think is out of touch, will enlighten him as to the actual position.

There are so many factors which make it very difficult for farmers in this country. There are the droughts, and the farmers have a lack of capital and the high interest rates they have to pay make it almost impossible for a farmer to make a success of his farming operations. No farmer, with the low incomes they have, can possibly afford interest rates of 8, 9 or 10 per cent. The hon. the Minister a few years ago said that the farmers do not make more than about 3 per cent on their capital investment. How can a farmer who makes 3 per cent on his capital investment afford to pay 8 per cent or more in interest rates? They cannot afford it and the Government will have to do something in connection with the interest rates on farmers’ debts. We know that the rates of interest on part of their loans are less; the rate on loans granted by Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is less, namely 5 per cent, but that is only a small amount of their debts. Something will have to be done by this Government, and it will have to be done soon, otherwise hundreds and thousands of farmers will go to the wall.

There is also the high cost of production, which is continually going up and which makes their position more difficult. Together with that, there are uncertain prices for many of their products, and for some products the prices are too low. But the greatest factor which makes the life of the farmer difficult and uncertain is an unsympathetic and powerless Minister and Government. The economic position of the farmer deteriorates from year to year and thousands have to leave the platteland annually to find a livelihood elsewhere, people who have no training for other jobs outside of farming. It is no wonder that a member of the Executive Committee in the Cape Province recently advised all young farmers to qualify in something else before starting to farm, because a farmer’s life is too uncertain. They were advised to qualify themselves in some other direction in order to make a better living.

Now there are some Government members who admit that the farmers have financial difficulties, but many of them seem to be out of touch with the farming community and do not know what the real position is. The hon. member for Winburg last year stated in the House that the impression the United Party is constantly creating is that the farmers in South Africa are having a very hard time. Sir, we are not creating an impression that they are having a hard time; we are stating a fact, and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me that they are having a very hard time. Yet hon. members say that we are trying to create the impression that they are having a hard time, and it is because of statements like that that the Government is not prepared to do anything. He evidently does not know that the incomes of 17 per cent of farmers are less than R1,000, and we must never forget that farmers have additional expenses which other people also have. He lives on a farm and has to send his children to school in the town, and he has to pay boarding and transport expenses. In some respects his expenses are more than those of the urban dweller. In some respects living on a farm may be cheaper than living in a town or city, but in other respects it is more expensive. R1,000 means something like R80 per month. Well, I do not think any young school-leaver earns less than R80 per month, yet that is what many farmers with families have to exist on. It is just impossible, they cannot do it. Thirty-five per cent of them have an income of less than R2,000 per year, and according to the annual report of the S.A.A.U. a large number of them are in “finansiële verknorsing”. Those are the words used in the report. The hon. the Minister is fond of saying we on this side generalize and try to make out all farmers are in a bad position. That is not so. Admittedly, there are farmers who are doing well; there are farmers with large units, farmers who have no debts, and they do very well. I accept they make a good living. But the proportion of those farmers is very small. The broad middle group is causing concern, according to the president of the S.A.A.U. He said, inter alia, the following in his presidential address—

That was said by the president of the S.A.A.U., a highly respected person, a very responsible person. He is well conversant with the position of the farmers of this country and I have no doubt he is absolutely correct in the statement he made on that occasion.

What is the Government always telling us? The Government tells us the position of our farmers is because of the drought and “we cannot make rain”. We accept people cannot make rain, but what we have to do is to improve the farmers’ position during those periods when there is no drought. Then the farmer must build up his farm, he must build up his financial position, and he must build up his strength. I wish to repeat—he must build up his farm and the carrying capacity of the farm, so that when a drought does come along he will be in a better position to withstand it.

We must also store fodder. Fodder banks must be established, whether we like it or not, it is something we have to provide. The hon. member for East London (City) mentioned the large stacks of chaff in the Western Province, much of which goes to ruin. We say that chaff can be utilized, it can be stored. I myself do it, I buy it up and store it on my farm, I store it cheaply.

You are setting a very good example.

Let me set a good example, but why does the Minister not assist others so that they can do the same? The Minister and I can possibly afford to do what I do.

I cannot make a man follow your example if he does not want to.

Oh, yes, if the Minister encouraged them and told them the value of it, they will do it. What I do can be done cheaply. Corrugated iron on tarred poles is a cheap method whereby it can be stored. On farms where there is no more grazing, it is no use giving sheep mealies only, because they die with the mealies in their stomachs because they cannot digest it. They must have roughage too, and chaff mixed with a lottle molasses is first-class. The farms have to be improved, as I said. More and better training of farmers must take place. If we do that, the Minister will find these farmers will store up cheap roughage. More research work must be done and more extension officers appointed. Mr. John Molteno, the chairman of the Deciduous Fruit Board, at Bien Donne recently spoke about the insufficient research work being undertaken in the Republic, and if I am not mistaken I think the Minister agrees that far more research must be done in connection with the industry. It has got to be done and it is just not being done. [Interjection.] You have to find these people and it has got to be done. Here is a headline in Die Burger of 8.11.1968—“Uys skilder ’n donker prentjie vir boere.”

Who told you to use molasses and chaff and feed it to your sheep?

It does not matter who told me. The Department probably told me that.

Did the Department of Agriculture tell you that?

Yes, but that is not enough. I want far more knowledge than that. The Minister is now trying to make out that we say the Department of Agriculture is not doing anything. But we have told him year after year they are doing excellent work, but not enough is being done, and what they are doing is not disseminated among the people. We have got to have better extension services. I believe in this country we have one extension officer for every 500 to 600 farmers. It is hopeless. The officers are loaded with office work—I understand something like 15 per cent only of their time is spent on meeting farmers and advising them about what to do. Contact is absolutely necessary. Whether we like it or not, whether it is right or wrong—and I say it is wrong—our farmers just will not read and they will not listen to the radio. Therefore I say we must make use of other methods to get the information across to them, because they must have that information. I say it must be done by personal contact. Perhaps we could make better use of leading farmers in communities, farmers who are successful in their communities, farmers who enjoy the respect of their fellow-farmers, to impress the others as to what they should do. Sometimes farmers pay more attention to a fellow farmer than they do to an official. Well, one can well understand that. I want to mention one instance as an example. I want to take the Howells of the Free State. There is no doubt that they have developed a method which they consider to be the correct one. I am referring to non-selective grazing. I am not saying it is a correct method for our farmers. It must still be proved. But they think it is the right method. Whether it is right or whether it is wrong, they have succeeded in putting it across to the people. The point I am making is this. Here a successful farmer is applying a certain method and the other farmers are prepared to accept what he says is true. Therefore I say we should make more use of leading farmers to put across to ordinary farmers the correct methods of farming. Let us hear what the Marais Commission has to say about this aspect—

I just want to repeat what I have said. Unless it is done by personal contact, one will never succeed.

The second excuse is that the farmers nay too much for the land, and that is why they are in trouble. We have already told the hon. the Minister that there may be farmers who Day too much for the land, but on the whole I do not believe that there are so many farmers who buy land. Many farmers inherit their property. Other farmers have the capital to buy land and these are not too much in debt. That is a factor, but it is a small factor in comparison with the other factors which really cause the downfall of the farmers. We are also told that there are too many inefficient farmers. Last year, the hon. member for Albany spoke about the acute shortage of vets in this country. He mentioned, amongst other things, that we lose annually stock to the value of R20 million. The hon. the Minister interjected and asked whether that was due to diseases or to lack of control. Lack of control is inefficiency. In other words, the implication is again that large numbers of the farmers are inefficient. I believe that the number of inefficient farmers in this country is small. I believe that the inefficient farmer has long ago already been weeded out. Conditions have weeded them out; they cannot exist.

I want to quote the hon. member for Win-burg. He made a speech last year, in which he gave his opinion as follows:

The fault cannot be laid at the door of the farmer. The farmer is not so inefficient. He still has to learn a lot, and that has to be taken into consideration.

The fourth excuse is that there are too many uneconomic units. Strangely, 20 years ago the term “uneconomic unit” was unheard of. We never spoke of an “uneconomic unit” 20 years ago. It is only since we have had a Nationalist Party Government that we hear the expression “uneconomic unit”.

Nonsense!

It is correct. The production costs have risen while the price of the products have not risen accordingly. Consequently, he is finding it uneconomical to produce at a reasonable rate. That is why there are so-called “uneconomic units”. It is strange, but last year the hon. member for Prieska informed us that in one district of his constituency there were 92 uneconomic units. But the farmers occupying them were such good farmers that only one applied for the consolidation of his debts. I have a suspicion that I know to which district he was referring, because his predecessor made a speech in this House about uneconomic units as well. He too used that particular area as an example. I know that many of those small farmers do have debts for loans for fodder. The question arises that, if they did not apply for the consolidation of their debts, they would have had very little hone of assistance under the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Act. That may be the reason, because there are only certain farmers who can be assisted in terms of that Act, only the farmers who are on the point of going under. The farmer who is going down, but still manages to keep going, has very little hope of being assisted in terms of the Act. Only the one who is on the very point of going down has any hope of obtaining assistance. These are some of the reasons that this Government is advancing for the sad financial state in which so many farms are. But I believe that the only valid reason is that this Government wants many farmers, especially the small farmer, to be driven off the land: firstly, to supplement the manpower shortage in the industrial areas and, secondly, because the Minister cannot introduce the necessary measures to save the agricultural industry.

Another point in respect of which agriculture has been neglected is soil erosion and the deterioration of our farms. I must say that I was surprised the week before last when the hon. the Deputy Minister gave me the impression that he realizes that it is a serious problem, but according to him, if I understood him correctly, he thought that we were doing enough under the present circumstances. I may be wrong, but I gained that impression. I have here the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. To my mind, it discloses a shocking state of affairs. It really makes sad reading. There is no improvement in the staff position. As regards professional posts, there is still a shortage of 17 per cent. The number of soil conservation works that have been completed on farms in 22 years amounts to 4,800 approved and 22,000 completed, costing R44 million in 22 years.

In other words, the farmers have spent R2 million per year in combating one of the most serious problems this country has to face. I just want to quote from the report:

We are doing less and less every year on a problem which is becoming bigger and bigger every year. The Department suggests a proper and searching investigation into its causes. The State itself does very little. I do not think one ought even to mention it. The report says that the loan scheme is falling into disuse altogether. As regards physical planning, the report says that—

Less has been done on a problem that has become increasingly serious. With regard to additional stipulations to the soil conservation plan, the report reads:

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to pay tribute to my predecessor. The hon. ex-Minister, during the years he served this Department, undertook and began certain things of which we are plucking the fruits to-day. I want to express my gratitude to him for the far-sightedness he displayed in connection with this entire matter. I shall refer back later to this specific matter which I have in mind here. On this occasion, where I am acting as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, my first privilege is to pay tribute to a great predecessor.

In the second place I should like to say a few words about the arguments raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in connection with pensions. Before saying anything about pensions or welfare services I want to lay down as a basic principle that it is my view, and also the view of the Government, that we cannot in truth ever do enough for our pensioners and our aged, because they are the people who laid the foundations of the Republic of South Africa. That is fundamental to my entire standpoint and policy in regard to this Department. That is why we are handling this situation—with the material at our disposal, with the finances at our disposal, with the problems which there may be—in the best way possible under the circumstances. The main complaint of the hon. member for Umbilo and the Opposition to-day was that the assistance we were giving our pensioners was inadequate. The hon. member mentioned the amount of R32 per month which at the moment is the maximum amount for old-age pensions. He said that that amounted to a little more than R1 a day and as a result of to-day’s high cost of living no person could live on it. I want to react immediately to that by saying that the hon. member for Paarl pointed out very clearly that if the pensioners to-day, with the present cost structure, the present cost of living, the present value of money and with the present pension they are drawing are allegedly in a desperate position, then they were in a position which was twice as desperate in 1947 when the Opposition were in power. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow does not know what we are talking about now, but if he had been here on time this afternoon, he would have known that that statement was proved this afternoon. If I were he, I would not make interjections. The fact remains that it has been proved here this afternoon that between 1947 and 1967 there has been an increase in the cost of living of 80.5 per cent. During that same period pension allowances improved by 156 per cent. If the hon. member wants to dispute this he can go and look at the figures. I do not want to go into this matter any further, because the hon. member for Paarl dealt with it in a very neat way.

We are not saying that R32 per month is adequate. The premise of this Department and this Government is that we refuse to make a welfare state of South Africa, as is in fact the case with many so-called civilized countries. We accept that our people still have an innate pride in providing certain things for themselves. Secondly we also accept that there are voluntary welfare organizations and churches for whom it is a pleasure to help these people and meet their needs. We do not want to smother or thwart that voluntary initiative. In the third place there is in the majority of cases of pensioners, children who ought to look after their parents and we do not want to relieve those children of that duty. We feel therefore that what the State ought to do here is not to provide everything but merely to act in a supplementary capacity to the welfare organizations and the normal duties of child towards his parent. That is why this R32 which the State is giving to pensioners is not all: that is why it is not adequate, and that is why we are giving what we are giving.

I do not want to go further into the state of the price index, but I do want to say something about the objection the hon. member made to the means test. I want to tell him that I am grateful that he dealt with the theme in such a moderate way, because it is definitely a matter one can argue about. The question one must reach a decision on in this connection is whether there should in fact be a means test or not. I want to state at once that I do not think one can at this stage abolish the means test in South Africa. This is so. firstly, for the simple reason that the richest person in South Africa would then be able to qualify for a pension, which would have to be taken out of the pockets of the ordinary taxpayers. It would, in the second place, entail that everybody in that situation would feel that they were entitled to the pension and that no one would make provision for his old age because he would automatically qualify for a pension.

I want to mention a third reason as well. In certain European countries where the welfare idea is prevailing at the moment, people are being given social insurance and all kinds of allowances. I specifically want to take the case of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands the position at the moment is such that a man can get 80 per cent of his normal income without working for two years by means of all the facilities preferences and security which is offered him in the form of pensions, subsidies and allowances, etc. In other words, the result of the entire system is to cause people to work less and less. If a man is prepared to forfeit 20 per cent of his income and live according to a standard of living which is 20 per cent lower he can succeed in doing so in the Netherlands without ever having to do any work. We do not want to move in that direction. South Africa is a young country with young people and a great future and we want to encourage our people to work as much as possible. That is why I am not prepared to accept that system.

There is another reason why I do not want to accept this system. It is a fact that in Britain with its tremendous influx of non-Whites it is of greater advantage to scores of these people not to work, because they receive a greater allowance if they do not work than if they do in fact work. When one has reached this level one realizes that you can take this idea of a welfare state too far. That is why I am adopting the premise that we shall have to accept in principle that there must be a means test. If there is a means test the result is of course—we can argue as much as we please—that there will always be border-line cases, because one draws a horizontal line through at a certain level, It makes no difference whether the means test is raised or lowered, there will always be border-line cases, and the hon. member will always be able to come along and state with melodramatic gestures here that he knows about a certain case which has only just been excluded by means of the means test. It makes no difference whether one draws the horizontal line for the means test at the very bottom or at the very top, there will always be border-line cases and we will have to make provision for them. The standpoint of the hon. member and the Opposition has always been that we should have a contributory or general pension scheme. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Kensington asked me, when I was dealing with my previous Bill, to make a civil pension scheme available. I accept that it is the idea of the hon. member that we should have a general contributory pension scheme. However, I want to add to that, that this matter has been discussed many times since I first came to this House. There have been numerous private motions on this matter already, and on as many occasions the Department has had the matter investigated thoroughly. Up to this stage it has been found that in spite of all the arguments, the State was not prepared to do so. There are many reasons for this, but I just want to put forward three reasons why I think it is not desirable. In the first place there is no state in which there are general pension schemes, as are being requested by the Opposition, where that scheme and fund are fully self-supporting. In spite of the fact that people make life-long contributions, there is always a deficit in that fund and the Treasury has to keep on making large contributions in order to supplement the fund. It is not adequate therefore because the State must support the fund in any case.

The second argument is that we believe that the worker—and this is a very sound principle—should make provision for his future while he is still young and healthy and can do his work. That is why we believe that if this system were to be introduced it would deprive him of his initiative.

The third argument is this. Are hon. members on the opposite side advocating a general pension scheme for all peoples, and therefore the non-Whites in South Africa as well? Is that what they are advocating? In that case I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side straight away whether they think that the nonwhite nations are ripe enough for such a scheme, whether they are ripe enough to make their contribution, or whether the administration will have to supplement the contribution and carry out the entire scheme. I want to be honest and state that I am of the opinion that the other population groups are not ripe for that scheme and that system. I obtained a figure from my Department which indicated that if the means test should be abolished under the present circumstances, as hon. members are asking, it would cost the State more or less R80 million per year. I think I have now put forward my arguments as to why I think that there should be a means test, but I also want to inform hon. members to what extent this means test has been relaxed during the past few years. I want to point out to them the accommodations which have in fact been made with the specific purpose on the one hand of making up or compensating for the increasing standard of living, the increasing prices and the depreciation of our money. Mr. Speaker, I see a glass of water has just been knocked over. It seems to me that is the only way in which old Bronkie will become a Nationalist (nat).

That is true.

Since 1948 the application of the means test has been relaxed considerably and on many occasions. In other words, concessions have been made within the framework without increasing the means-plus-pension restrictions. In this way it was possible to include thousands of people in this scheme. In 1948 for example the admissible assets for a married person were R1,600 and for a single person R800. In 1953 it was adjusted to R2,400 in the case of married persons and R1,200 in the case of single persons. In 1965 it was relaxed further so that a married person could possess assets to the value of R5.600, and as a result of a special concession it remained precisely the same for unmarried persons, i.e. R5,600. In 1967 it was relaxed further so that married as well as unmarried persons could possess assets to the value of R6,800 and still receive the maximum pension. For a person above the age of 70 the adjustment was taken even further, i.e. that such a person could possess assets to the amount of R8,000 and still receive the full maximum pension. When I say that, I can understand why the hon. member for Umbilo is now able to come forward with his argument and state that there is a problem. He mentioned the case of a man over 70 who had assets of almost R8,000 and whose wife has assets totalling R6,800, so that together their assets totalled R14,800. As a result of this scheme they were therefore excluded from the joint pension. However, it is nevertheless clear that this is one of the border cases and that this is one of the very rare exceptions which can occur. It just so happened that the combined assets of these two fell just within the respective limits, and that their joint assets were above the limits. It is obvious that there may be such cases, but the position remains as clear as day that we are still allowing maximum pensions here. Minimum pensions are still being allowed in certain cases while the joint assets can be between R13,000 and R14,000. A further concession has also been made, Mr. Speaker. Since 1967 only 75 per cent of the municipal valuation of a property, after deduction of mortgage, is taken into account. This is a further concession in respect of a person who owns a house and whose house has a certain value. We have already heard the argument here that a person must have a house to live in and that he cannot eat stones, tar and cement, and that he should nevertheless have a pension. The fact of the matter is that the Act has now been amended to that effect. Only 75 per cent of the municipal valuation is taken into account.

It took years.

Yes, but it is there. Instead of saying thank you you are still criticizing. “Thank the Minister” ought to be the reply. We are only taking 75 per cent of the municipal value of a person’s house into account, and if it is less than R6,800, a person still qualifies for the full pension, in other words, he can live and he can eat. This is a tremendous concession which was made by this Government during this time. In 1955 the means test in respect of war veterans above the age of 70 was lowered considerably. This relates to war veterans of the two world wars. The earnings of persons above 70 years of age was left out of reckoning altogether, which was a further concession during that year.

Does that include the war veterans of the first world war as well?

Yes. The means test in respect of war veterans of the second Anglo-Boer War was completely abolished in that year. If a person, because of age or disability has no income, only one-sixth of his wife’s earnings are taken into account in the calculation of a pension or an allowance. This concession was made in 1967. This was a further concession for both men and women where one of the two was ailing and could not work and the other partner became the breadwinner. Only one-third of that person’s income, and because there are two it is further divided by two so that only one-sixth of that person’s income, counts against the married couple for qualification in the means test. A widow with children is only assessed on the half of her earnings. In order to compensate, over and above maintenance and child allowances, to a certain extent for the loss of income when a husband who was, for example, receiving a social pension dies, the widow is paid, over and above the parent and child allowance, an additional amount of R10 per month. This amount was increased from R5.50 to R10, which was also an additional concession. So I can go on with a whole series of these concessions. I can mention to you that the additional allowance in respect of school-going high school children was increased by R4 per month, and in respect of primary school children by R2 per month. Since 1965 unemployment insurance benefits are no longer taken into account for pension purposes. The attendant’s allowance has been increased from R4 to R10 per month, and last year a further amendment was added, i.e. that a person above the age of 90 automatically receives a custodian’s allowance of R10.

What about the future?

This is what has been done to date, and as far as the future is concerned we will continue in precisely the same way to make adjustments from time to time as circumstances require and our funds allow. I can give you the assurance that I, as Minister of Pensions, feel very strongly about this matter, and that I will of course try to get what I can under the circumstances. It does not help to be irresponsible and make wild promises if one cannot keep them. That is why I can make no promises and why I do not want to make any promises either. I just want to say that I give attention to these matters from time to time and that as circumstances occur we will make adjustments from time to time in order to accommodate our elderly people.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say something in regard to the civil pensioners. Recently civil pensioners have also received certain concessions. These persons have contributed a certain amount over a period when cost of living was considerably lower than it was when they went on pension. When they went on pension a certain amount was allocated to them. As the cost of living subsequently increased and the value of money decreased, this pension amount was subsequently of such a nature that it was in fact a very small amount and that the person could not subsist on it. In these cases as well concessions had to be made in order to supplement that amount. There are four ways in which this is being done. Apart from the basic allowance there is a temporary allowance, about which I shall say something later on. There is also a bonus allowance on the basic civil pension over and above the pension which works on a percentage basis. In addition there is a supplementary allowance in certain cases, as well as a medical allowance in certain cases.

Can you not simplify this? There are a great many allowances.

Yes, it can be simplified later on, but the fact remains that this is the position now. The basic pension is the amount to which the pension fund is compromised according to the contribution made by individuals. The rest we are doing because we want to take the cost of living into account and supplement the amount by means of an allowance. I should like to comment briefly on the temporary allowance. White civil pensioners who became eligible for a pension after 1st October, 1962, are at present receiving a temporary allowance of R30 per month in the case of a person with dependents, and R13 per month in the case of a person without dependents. In respect of persons who became eligible for a pension before that date, the allowance varies from R31 to R41 per month for married persons, and from R13 to R17 per month for unmarried persons, according to the date on which they became eligible for a pension. A married person, for example, who became eligible for a pension on 1st October, 1953 receives the maximum allowance of R40 per month. This is an additional temporary allowance to make up for the depreciation of money. Before 1st October, 1968, payment of these allowances was subject to the means test, the means limit, which has since been removed. To-day some married pensioners are receiving a temporary allowance of R480 per year, as against the R90 per year they were receiving in 1947.

Why is it a temporary allowance?

It is a temporary allowance because one never knows what can develop and in what direction it will develop and one does not therefore want to consolidate it at this stage. It can be considered in due course; it is not impossible. We have an entirely open mind in this connection.

We then come to the bonus concessions on the basic civil pension. Apart from the concession of temporary and medical allowances the position of civil pensioners has been further improved by bonus concessions on the basic pension. We made a sliding scale applicable here. This scheme was introduced in 1959 and we are adding to the pensions as it improves in due course. By way of explanation I just want to mention that a person who left the Public Service before 1st October, 1953, received before that date a bonus on his basic pension amounting to 35 per cent of that pension. A person who retired between 1953 and 1958 receives a bonus of 30 per cent; between 1958 and 1962, 25 per cent; between 1962 and 1965, 20 per cent; between 1965 and 1968, 15 per cent and between 1968 and 1969, 10 percent. By means of this sliding scale the position is constantly being reviewed and those people who have been retired the longest receive a greater percentage contribution in order to compensate for the depreciation of money.

With reference to the supplementary allowance, if the temporary allowance and bonusses, together with the basic pension, are still not adequate to ensure that a married person receives a minimum income of R94 per month, and an unmarried person R47 per month, then it is further supplemented to those amounts. The case which the hon. member for Umbilo mentioned of a person who was receiving less than that is that of a person who must have been on a very low salary scale in the Public Service in the old days. He therefore received less than R94. It was then supplemented to R94 by this allowance. When the announcement was made last year of an increase, it increased to more than R94. This is quite understandable, but this supplementation to R94 is simply to supplement that to which he is entitled to the minimum. That is why that allowance had to be decreased again to the minimum of R94. I can just say to the hon. member that this matter has been reconsidered, and from 1st April, 1969, this minimum is being increased from R94 to R100 for married couples, and from R47 to R50 for unmarried persons. Then there is in addition the medical allowance of R10 which is being allocated to a white person, who cannot help himself owing to the state of his health, or who has to incur heavy medical expenditure. Such an allowance is automatically made applicable to all white pensioners, who are over the age of 90 years.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have put forward arguments here which indicate that the means test is essential and which indicate that it should remain. We believe that it must in due course be raised because it is not a fixed, inflexible rule since it is being adjusted to changing circumstances. We are giving as much assistance as possible from all quarters. I want to give you the assurance that this will be the policy in future.

The hon. member spoke about a pamphlet which I announced on a former occasion, which he welcomed in principle, but the contents of which he criticized. I can just tell the hon. member that it depends on the purpose for which the pamphlet is published. With the publication of this pamphlet it was not the purpose of the Department to explain all the details in regard to pensions and all possible hitches and pitfalls which might occur and to warn people against them. If that was the purpose we would not have published such a pamphlet, but a booklet of 10 to 12 pages, so that all the matters and possibilities could be discussed. We did not do this with that purpose in mind.

The Department of Labour does so.

Very well, we can consider it for the future. It is in fact possible to do so. This is the first time now that a thing like this is being done, and I am glad that the idea is being welcomed. That is why I maintain that one can always improve on an idea. The purpose of this pamphlet was in the first place merely to indicate to the public what pensions did in fact exist. That is why it was mentioned in broad outline what these pensions implied. If you read the pamphlet you find the following—

And then it states very clearly, in order to bring to the attention of the public, which was under the impression that certain cases did not qualify at all—

Specifically those people who were under the impression that they could not apply for a pension because they owned a house. There are many of them who are under that impression, and here it is being brought to their specific attention. In conclusion, after we have furnished the basic information we wanted to furnish to the public, we make the following very clear. There is a nota bena in the margin in order to show that it is important, i.e. the following—

In other words, we refer that person to the specific place where he can obtain all the particulars. Then in conclusion we state—

In other words, I am helping the hon. member for Umbilo by referring his voters to him; he can then do whatever is necessary for them and that ought to make him more popular in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I have now finished dealing with the subject of the pamphlet. In conclusion I just want to say a few words about our aged and about the policy in respect of our aged, to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred. My predecessor sent an official overseas to make a special study of circumstances there in regard to the care of the aged. The official published a very bulky and useful report with which we are now dealing and which has given rise to these amendments which have been announced. In the first place I want to say that I am not a person who believes in taking over, holus-bolus, without having an investigation made, everything which is being done overseas. I believe that we can go and see what is being done overseas, and then apply that which can be applied to our local circumstances, and use that which is useful, while rejecting that which is not. I do not take over slavishly. A special section was established for care of the aged, and subsequent to that I made this announcement—and I adhere to it—

I just want to tell the hon. member that this announcement was made on 22nd November last year. This is the policy and this is what will be implemented. The hon. member must not expect everything to be in operation already. This is the direction our ideas are taking, and I want to give him the assurance that we will work in this direction, and in due course we will take all the necessary steps to carry out the policy. The policy is that the aged will be dealt with in three groups. In the first place we keep the aged in the community as part of the community for as long as possible. We let them live in their natural environment and we help them with services in order to meet the problems of old age. I owe a vote of thanks to numerous welfare organizations which are already doing this kind of work. We will help and encourage them with the necessary assistance which may be rendered. Secondly, when they are no longer able, as a result of circumstances, to stay in their own houses, then the policy is to move them to flat units where they can enjoy the security and protection which is necessary but where they can still retain an interest and independence by providing for their own needs, with the help and instruction of helpers, welfare workers and friends. Where their home circumstances become such that they become lonely, then we group them together. But these places are regarded as residential units, not old age homes. They still remain a Dart of the entire community. As far as the third group is concerned, the policy is as follows: Only when one or both partners of the married couple becomes feeble, physically and/or mentally, to such an extent that he or she can no longer get along without medical aid and require specialized medical services, then they are taken up in old age homes where they can find the necessary devotion and care and where they will be cared for on a semi-medical basis. That is my policy: that is the standpoint of the Department. It is a policy which we are going to carr through from now on. We shall carry it through successfully and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will continue on this course because we believe that it is in the interests of our elderly people.

I have listened with interest to the arguments of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I want to congratulate him on his first speech in his new capacity. We from this side of the House wish him well in the new high office which he has assumed. But having listened to the hon. the Minister, I do not know whether, if I were a pensioner, I would not rather have had the hon. member for Umbilo occupying that office. Sir, as the time allotted for this debate has now expired, there is no time for me to develop my argument and I will therefore end my speech.

Mr. Speaker, the matters which have been touched upon in this debate during the past three hours are for the most part matters which do not affect either myself or my department directly. Most of the matters touched upon here have been dealt with adequately by my colleagues on this side of the House, and the matters affecting myself were almost all of them matters concerning tax concessions or new taxes. Hon. members will realize that it is not possible for me a month before the Budget, to discuss taxation. Consequently there remains nothing for me to do than to move the Third Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Sir, it is known that on liquor measures this side of the House has a free vote and that each member is entitled to speak according to his own convictions and express his own views. Therefore those of us who speak on this side of the House, do so entirely as individuals. I think it is a pity that the same policy, the same principle, is not followed by the Government in regard to legislation of this nature. I think too that the discussions in the Committee Stage of this Bill show the great need for consultation and discussion before such a measure is brought before the House. Particularly where there is a free vote on the measure, there is all the more reason for consultation. The hon. the Minister will remember that early in the Session he undertook that there would be ample time for full discussion and consultation, but he will agree with me that the opportunity has been a limited one; that the memoranda received by him were submitted to him hurriedly, at short notice, and that there has in fact been little opportunity for proper consultation which would enable a measure with 60 clauses, involving complicated administration, to be thrashed out. Many of the points of difference which have arisen could then have been ironed out.

You spent all your time at Newcastle instead of studying the Bill.

Sir, I happen to have studied the Bill. The Minister says that I was at Newcastle. I happened during that week to approach the representatives of hotel associations and they had not yet had an opportunity to give full consideration to the measure. At that stage there was no indication that it would be coming before the House, and they undertook to send me a memorandum by the end of the week. By the end of the week the measure had already had its Second Reading and we were halfway through the Committee Stage. I am not suggesting that there was a lack of opportunity for consideration in this House, where I accept that it is the responsibility of members to be ready. I refer to the opportunity to consult with those who are affected by the Bill. Once the measure is introduced in the House, the hon. the Minister cannot, to save his own face, accept that there are things in it which are wrong, whereas in private discussion one could possibly reach agreement on points of difference. Once a Bill is before the House the Minister sticks by his guns and it is far more difficult to reach agreement on anything more than very minor issues. Sir, this may appear to be an administrative measure but in fact this Bill has some very far-reaching implications. I am sorry the hon. the Minister is otherwise engaged at the moment, because I would have liked to show the Minister my comments on the back of the Bill comments which I wrote out ten days ago after the Bill was introduced. I called it “the expansion of empire bill”, expanding the empire of control over liquor affairs, which has been built up under our liquor legislation. This is essentially a restrictive Bill. It is a Bill moving towards more and more restrictions. I believe that that is the wrong direction in which to move in regard to the control of liquor in South Africa. This Bill should have simplified our liquor legislation. Instead of that it makes it more complicated. It should have removed petty conditions and petty annoyances. Instead of that it adds to them. It should have removed anomalies; instead of them it creates new anomalies. It should have moved towards the removal of dual control: instead of that it perpetuates dual control. If you just look at the Bill, Sir, you find that the first two clauses create a new authority. Clauses 5. 8, 9, 10, 15. 16. 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, 48, 49 and 52 right through to 59 are all clauses which either grant new powers, impose new conditions, create new offences, provide for penalties or take away rights. Over half this measure takes away something or gives new powers to the Minister or introduces new restrictions or deals with penalities for offences and breaches of the law.

I want to return to these restrictive conditions in a moment, but firstly I would like to raise one or two other matters which have not been dealt with so far. I believe the Minister has had representations made to him in regard to the wording of clause 18; he has been asked to change the term “cooler bags” to “cooler containers”, which seems a reasonable enough proposal. Cooler bags are essentially bags; cooler containers are fibre glass containers which are sold in most bottle stores.

However, I want to raise an entirely different matter in regard to the amendments proposed in this Bill, and that is the question of access, the provision that there shall not be an entrance between licensed premises and other premises. This is an amendment which is effected to section 69 (3) (b) but which. I believe, has not done anything to help to solve the problem. There are cases where hotels are built adjacent to parking garages. Under section 69 of the existing legislation, there may be no access from a hotel into any other business premises. If the garage is a business premise, as it is, then you cannot have the convenience of entrances leading from the hotel straight through to the floor on which the resident’s car is parked. More and more, as in the case of a Durban hotel which is now a motel, the tendency is growing for hotels to try to provide multi-floor parking for the convenience of their guests. I would plead with the hon. the Minister to consider this and also to consider those hotels which are part of a multi-purpose structure, of a structure with shops and offices in the same building. In terms of existing legislation, you have to have a separate lift, separate fire escapes, etc., to isolate the hotel entirely from every other part of the building. Plans have been rejected, for instance, for hotels which wish to have, say, six floors for hotel residents and then above those three or four floors of flats. In order to do that, they would have to build two quite separate sets of lifts, quite divorced from each other, the one outside the building to serve the flats. There seems to me to be no reason to continue this sort of prohibition, and since the section is being amended, it seems to be the opportunity now—perhaps in the Other Place—to introduce amendments to cater for these cases for the convenience of the public and of the hoteliers themselves. In this respect I am thinking more in terms of the public who would get the benefit of such an amendment. I can understand that you do not want liquor premises linked up with other businesses, with general dealers, bakeries, butcheries or other businesses of that sort, but it should be quite easy to frame an amendment which would provide for flat accommodation or for parking garages and which would not go against the spirit of the restrictions.

I mentioned in the Committee Stage the question of bars and wine and malt licences which had been excluded where additional privileges had been given to clubs and restaurants. I would again plead with the Minister to include bars and restaurants which have been approved by himself—not every one, but those that have been approved by him.

I told you what I would do.

The Minister said he would consider it. I am pleading with him to introduce an amendment to that extent.

The next item on which I wish to plead with the Minister is again in regard to the question of females, i.e. the deletion of the phrase “housekeeper”. If the Minister is determined, as he indicated, not to accept the suggestion that “manageress” should replace the word “housekeeper” in case it led to abuse, then I would ask him to consider a lesser right, and that is in section 104 only to make provision for a manageress, not to serve behind the counter but to cash up and to lock up at night, to collect the money from licensed premises, to take stock and to do the other things a manageress is required to do, and if necessary, specifically to exclude the right to serve behind the counter. But as it is, the manageress or housekeeper is not entitled to go into the restricted premises. I plead with the Minister, in terms of section 104, to give that right, excluding the right to serve liquor. The right should be granted to do the administrative managerial things which are required of a manageress.

While I am dealing with that, I hope the Minister will carry his enlightened views with regard to barmaids a little further. I believe that they should not be restricted only to women’s bars, but that there is scope for them to raise the tone and therefore to improve the whole atmosphere in other types of bars as well. The Minister has the power to do so and I would ask him to consider, where he regards it as being in the public interest, applications of that nature as well.

Now I come back to what I call the restrictive sections of the Bill. We have in clauses 2 and 3 the creation of a new authority. It takes two full pages of the Bill to create an authority to replace what was a simple five lines of procedure for the making application for and granting of wine producers’ licences and the fermentation of fruits. Now we not only have this involved procedure, but we have an anomaly, which differentiates between the wine farmer and the maker of wine from other fruit. We have a discrimination against the wine farmer. I do not know what those who represent wine farmers here think about it, but I think it is something that should be looked at. The wine farmer may only use his own product, his own grapes, or the grapes, if it is a co-operative, of a member of the cooperative. The fruit wine producer may buy the fruit from any source he likes, the fruit from which the wine is made. The wine farmer or the co-operative is restricted in its right to sell, whereas the producer of wine from other fruits may sell and distribute direct to the public, not in wholesale quantities, and may distribute by rail. The Minister, I feel, should consider making the conditions of the fruit wine farmer the same as those of the grape wine farmer.

Then we have the anomaly created by a minimum sentence being imposed for an offence which every licensee at one stage or another is forced by the law to commit. This to me seems, as I said in the Committee Stage, a ridiculous state of affairs, and while the Minister shrugged his shoulders and said that they have never prosecuted, I still feel it is an anomaly to create an offence knowingly under the law with no intention of prosecuting for it. I would plead with the Minister to differentiate between the illicit liquor seller, the person deliberately selling without a licence, the shebeener, the runner or the person who is trading in liquor without a licence, as opposed to the existing established business with a licence which, because of a technicality, commits an offence and is now classified in the same group and subject to the same compulsory minimum punishment as the criminal. This is a matter which I feel will do a great deal to alleviate concern amongst people who will always have hanging over their heads the sword of Damocles against anyone dying, anyone absconding or any licensee suddenly becoming unavailable. I do not want to repeat the arguments I used in the Committee, but I plead with the Minister to differentiate between the technical offence, the unwitting offence, or the offence which cannot be avoided, and the deliberate offence by a criminal.

Then we have the additional powers taken under clause 19. In terms of the existing section 71bis of the Act, the Minister is entitled “to attach to any certificate issued under subsection (4) such conditions as he may deem fit”. In other words, when a hotel classifies it receives a certificate of classification, and in that certificate is laid down the conditions under which it has to operate. The Minister has added after “conditions” the words “or restrictions”. I accept that; condition or restriction is the same. But the classified hotel until now received a document which said: This is what you must do; these are the conditions under which you are classified. Now it is proposed to introduce a subsection (b) stating that he may “at any time amend or delete any such condition or restriction or attach any further condition or restriction to any such certificate as he may deem fit”. In other words, there is no permanence or security. The licensee, the hotelier, does not know from day to day what new conditions are going to be placed upon him. When he takes out the licence he should know that those are the conditions under which he shall operate at least for the next year, at least until the licensing boards meet and more conditions are imposed; or if the Minister intends to impose conditions he should not be able to impose them arbitrarily at any time and at his whim. There should be fixed occasions, annually. Now there is no three years reclassification, it could not be three years, but even annually, so that people would know where they stood when they invested money in their premises. These powers not only lead to uncertainty but they show that in fact—and I ask the Minister whether this is so—over the last year or so, since classification started, the National Liquor Board has been acting illegally. It has in fact been adding new conditions which in terms of the Act could only be applied at the time when the certificate was issued. I ask the Minister to tell the House under what powers the additional conditions which have been imposed from time to time were in fact legitimately imposed on hotels. I am opposed to this continual expansion of the right to make conditions and impose restrictions, and not only to make them but to be able to chop and change about, alter them and amend them at any time and without any warning.

In clause 29 we have exactly the same approach, a complete clause allowing, on top of these specific powers to impose restrictions, the power to the Minister to impose general conditions and restrictions. Again on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, any such conditions or restrictions may be imposed as he may deem fit. This continual trend towards more power is something which concerns me, and that, together with those clauses I have mentioned, make up the pattern in this Bill of the increase in those powers.

Then we have the amendment proposed in this Bill dealing with alterations. The Minister was not very sympathetic on this question in the Committee Stage, but I plead with him to think again about this proposal and the deletion of the term “major”. If he wants major alterations controlled I ask him not to change the Act from “major alterations” to “any structural alteration”. I would ask the Minister to seek a different wording which will differentiate between substantive alterations which affect the building and mere fittings or additions of a nature which technically are structural alterations but which I am sure are not intended. I would also ask him to make provision in the case of minor alterations not affecting the building in any way, but which technically are structural, to allow these to be carried out and then application made within, say, three days or a week for approval. Alterations of a type which, if they were refused, could simply be changed, but it is unnecessary to delay work for three or four weeks or up to two months waiting for authority to come through. Provision could be made for such alterations to be made subject to application for the alterations being submitted within a fixed time. I am not going to labour again the problem of labelling and the costs involved, but will merely ask the Minister to check with the police and find out how important this really is to them in their dealings with liquor; to find out whether it is in fact something which will be of use to them, or whether they are merely asking for the power because they think it may help in a broader sense. Then I would ask the Minister to weigh up the importance of the need to have it against the inconvenience which it will cause to the trade, and its cost.

The hon. member for Transkei is not here at the moment, but I support again his objection to the removal of special privileges from the Kokstad area, which is part of the pattern of taking away rights. I oppose, as we all oppose on this side of the House, the minimum sentences in the Bill, sentences which we believe should be left to the discretion of the magistrate but with a higher maximum fine prescribed. If the maximum fine is high, the magistrate will impose relatively higher fines for these offences. It is the maximum fine which determines the seriousness of the offence. But there should be a discretion left to the magistrate to deal, for instance, with those cases where, under section 47 for instance, licensed premises become unlicensed through a technicality and where, if any officious policeman laid a charge, the magistrate would be forced to impose the minimum sentence despite any assurance the Minister may have given in this House. The offences are often vicarious offences. They are offences not committed by the licensee but by one of his staff, without any possibility of his controlling them, and yet he has to take full responsibility for them. Now those offences are made the subject of possible removal of licence from a person. Where before it was only certain offences, it now becomes any offence. We are building up this wall around the licensee, making it impossible for him to escape at some time or other from committing an offence, and then we are saying that that offence, which is more or less forced upon him without his being able to do anything about it, shall or may be the reason for his losing the right to obtain a licence in future. This whole picture is one which, I submit, will lead to a lack of confidence on the part of potential entrepreneurs who will not want to submit themselves to the uncertainty which will result from the present legislation and which will be far worse when this Bill is passed.

I do not think one can say much more than to plead with the Minister. As I say, this is a matter of individual choice on this side of the House. I myself feel that this Bill does not serve the interests either of the public or of the Department or of the trade. I believe it creates powers which are unnecessary, which go beyond what the Minister needs, and that therefore it is a Bill which should be opposed; and I intend to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly conduct another Committee Stage debate at the Third Reading stage. The hon. member discussed individual clauses to a very large extent. The only new point he made was whether there had been enough time for consultation. I want to say that I believe that on very few occasions has there been so much time for consultation as in the case of this measure. This Bill was published for the first time in 1967, admittedly not in its present form, and after that discussions were held with the organized liquor trade. Certain amendments proposed by them were accepted, while others could not be accepted. This Session was opened on 31st January, and on 3rd February, the Monday, we assembled here, and on 4th February this measure was on the desks of hon. members. I received no representations from any body before 21st February, when I received the memorandum of the organized liquor trade.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did the Minister not say that there would be full opportunity for consultation? Did he not say there would be no hurry?

Yes, I think I said so in my Second Reading speech.

No, on 2nd February.

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to now.

You told me there would be full opportunity …

Yes, but surely from 2nd February to 24th February is full opportunity; it is three weeks. That is why I told the hon. member that he spent his time in Newcastle. On 21st February, last Friday, I received the further memorandum of Fedhasa. That is their reaction to this measure which was upon the Table here on 4th February. The 22nd was a Saturday, the 23rd a Sunday, and Monday, the 24th, we had the Committee Stage.

No, the Committee Stage commenced before that.

No, not as far as I know, but this is hairsplitting now. My contention is that neither the liquor trade nor hon. members can complain that there has not been full opportunity for representations, and that they did not have this measure available for inspection.

I now want to refer to a few new points which the hon. member mentioned and to which I should like to reply. I mentioned the common backyard which is no longer prohibited, and then he submitted a plea for parking garages having access to certain hotels. It is a matter which is receiving attention and being investigated at the moment. The National Liquor Board is investigating this matter and will make recommendations to me. I should like to give the hon. member that assurance.

He is mistaken as regards the new method of licensing or the authority applying to wine farmers and the producers of other fermented beverages. The two authorities are exactly the same. We are in fact adjusting the authorities of wine farmers to those of producers of other fermented beverages. That is what is happening there. I am prepared to consider the question of a manageress for certain purposes. It is of course too late now to embody it in this measure. I say for certain purposes, because the hon. member said that they need not go behind the counter, but only for certain purposes. We can go into that.

As far as the minimum penalties are concerned, it is only the question of business being carried on without a licence. The difficulty here is to distinguish between an ordinary hotelier and the shebeen trader who possesses no licence—and never can possess one. That is the trouble. I do not want to exclude the possibility altogether that one may be able to distinguish between the two. As far as the legal draftsmen and my Department are concerned, it was not possible to distinguish between the two. If a person carries on business without a licence, then he has no licence, whether he be a hotelier, a bottle-store owner, or a shebeen owner. That is our difficulty.

Then the hon. member complained about my being able to impose further restrictions now, while I could only lay down conditions previously. In the Committee Stage I explained why we are using the word “restrictions”. I said that as far as “conditions” were concerned, it was my experience that when a person is entitled to a bottle-store or an off-sales licence, one can hardly say to him that he is restricted to trading with only one race group. Certain cases have occurred, in fact in my own home town there was such a case, where application was made for the transfer of an off-sales licence by a classified hotel and where the public was quite prepared to accept the transfer provided that it would be for Whites only. They were not prepared to accept it if it would include non-Whites. I was obliged to persuade the man to apply for an off-sales licence for Whites only. There were negotiations with him to persuade him. We should like to have the power—because we think it is in the interests of the community—to say, “All right, your application is granted, but at that place you can only sell to Whites”, so that no concentration of non-Whites will develop there. That is the reason for that clause.

The question of labelling was mentioned again. I said we did not intend to make general use of it, but cases may occur where it will be necessary. The police think there are certain areas where it will be necessary to recommend the use of this particular power.

I do not want to repeat what we said about Mount Currie. The fact of the matter is that the Mount Currie magisterial district forms part of the White Republic of South Africa and there is no reason why the liquor legislation applicable to the rest of the Republic should not be applicable there as well. I now want to go further and say that I am much inclined to agree with the hon. member for Aliwal. Strangely enough, there were the discussions with the licensees of Kokstad at the end of 1967, and to this day I have not received any representations against this legislation from one single farmers’ association or from the organized community or from an individual from the Mount Currie magisterial district.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—80: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Janson. T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse. R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall. J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; 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 Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Visse. J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—26: Bennett, C.; 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. M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and W. V. Raw.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted yesterday, I was explaining to the House what the main object of this Bill is. First of all I am going to confine myself to that once again. The main object of this legislation is to convert the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, which has been registered as a non-profit company in terms of the Companies Act of 1926, into a statutory body. As hon. members are aware, in terms of section 24 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942, the State President entered into an agreement with a consortium of 16 insurance companies in March, 1966. One of the conditions of the agreement was that these companies had to establish, in terms of section 21 of the Companies Act, 1926, a company under the name of “Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund” in order to re-insure their risks. The company that was established subsequently, is controlled by 17 directors; each of the 16 members of the consortium appointed one director, and the 17th one is an officer of the Department of Transport, appointed by the Minister. In terms of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, to which I shall hereafter refer as the Fund, control over the spending of the moneys of the Fund was granted to the Minister of Transport.

In addition the Minister of Transport, the Fund and the members of the Fund entered into an agreement in terms of which the Minister may also exercise control over the activities of the Fund and the obligations of the companies towards the Fund.

What is embraced by the control which is at present being exercised in terms of the latter agreement, is that officers of the Department of Transport may examine the books of the insurance companies so as to ensure that amounts in respect of claims which have arisen in terms of the Act, are not paid out unlawfully, and also that the correct amounts in respect of claims previously paid out by them are recovered from the Fund. In addition, the books of agents of companies are examined to ensure that the correct premiums are collected and regularly paid over to companies. Control is also exercised over the paying over of premium revenue to the Fund.

With its available staff the Fund cannot exercise any proper control over the above-mentioned matters, and such control as does exist, is being exercised by the Department of Transport.

Although the relationship between the Minister of Transport, the Fund and the Department of Transport is of the very best, everybody is agreed that, since the Minister of Transport has to guarantee the solvency of the Fund, he should be in a position to exercise full control over the Fund, which in present circumstances, while the Fund is a private company, he cannot do. All interested parties are agreed that this step is in the public interest.

Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill seek to embody in the legislation the steps which were taken, in regard to the establishment of the Fund, in entering into the agreement, and ensure that the status quo will be preserved.

The proposed section 25B provides that as from the date of commencement of this Bill, the company under the name of the “Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund” will cease to be a company registered under the Companies Act of 1926, and be deemed to have been at all times since its establishment a body corporate under the same name, and further that anything lawfully done in the name of the company, will be deemed to have been done in the name of the new body.

Section 25C defines the powers of the Fund and also authorizes it to enter into an agreement with the Minister of Transport in order to make provision for the payment of compensation to a person who suffers as a result of physical injuries or death caused by an uninsured or unindentified motor vehicle as contemplated in section 2quat.

This section also provides that the Fund must keep proper records of its financial transactions, assets and liabilities, and that its accounts must be audited annually by a person registered as an accountant and auditor under the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951. The Fund must also, after each audit, submit to the Minister audited balance sheets and a report by the auditor, together with a report on its activities during the year.

The proposed section 25D makes provision for the appointment by the Minister of a manager for the Fund and also of a committee, consisting of six representatives of registered companies, which the manager may consult and which may make representations to the manager in connection with the business of the Fund.

In addition, it authorizes the Secretary for Transport to appoint the necessary staff for the Fund, and also provides that the expenses incurred by the Secretary for Transport in this regard are recoverable from the Fund and must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Since the Fund is now becoming a statutory body, it is being freed from the obligations imposed upon it by other legislation at present. In order to maintain liaison with the members of the Fund, it is now being provided that a committee representative of the members of the Fund, may be constituted in order to co-operate with the Fund.

The proposed section 25E provides that the Insurance Act of 1943 will not apply in respect of the Fund established in terms of this legislation: provided that reinsurance by the Fund will be regarded as approved reinsurance. It is being provided further that the income of the Fund will be exempt from income tax and that the State President may apply to the Fund any provision of laws relating to companies. The income of the Fund is being exempted from income tax, which is also the case at present.

The main object of the amendments that are envisaged, are, as hon. members will probably have noticed, to bring about better control over the activities of the Fund, an object which can only be achieved if the Fund is staffed by public servants, who will function under the supervision of the Secretary for Transport.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this Fund remains autonomous. Firstly, it is not subject to the Controller and Auditor-General. Secondly, it is not subject to the Treasury. Thirdly, it is not subject to Parliament. Consequently the autonomy of the Fund remains intact. I want to emphasize that there will still be ministerial control over it, as is the case at present. Each of the sixteen members of the consortium has agreed, without any reservations, to the establishment of this Fund.

Mr. Speaker, any measure taken to improve motor vehicle and third party insurance, etc., will always receive the sympathetic consideration of this side of the House. Although we had objections to the original Bill, we shall not necessarily oppose these amendments. There are other members on this side of the House who wish to discuss certain matters with the Minister, and I know that he will devote careful attention to what they have to say.

But what I should like to hear, is specifically connected with clause 8 of the Bill. The agreement to which reference is made, makes provision for the number of insurance companies which may be members of the consortium. I think the Minister should tell us whether the time has not arrived for that number to be increased. It is quite clear, and the experience gained in connection with the Bill proves to us, that these 16 privileged insurance companies are merely acting as agents. They do not run any risks. They collect money, receive ample commission for doing so and to all intents and purposes perform very few functions in the interests of the motorist. I do not wish to say that this is wrong. There may be many virtues to it, but I should like the Minister to tell us, after our experience of the Act, whether he still thinks it is fair to exclude a large number of South African companies and other companies which are doing legitimate business in South Africa, from this extremely privileged position created through legislation in this Parliament. It ought to be the aim of Parliament to do justice to everybody who is doing legitimate and sound business in South Africa. I do not think that the Deputy Minister would rise and say that those insurance companies which are not members of the consortium were excluded because they are incompetent and conduct themselves dishonestly or unethically in the business life of South Africa. Here we have arbitrary discrimination against citizens of South Africa. I really do not think that Parliament can carry on authorizing the Minister of Transport to keep up this arbitrary attitude to the advantage of favoured persons and to the detriment of deserving citizens and companies of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this fund has a history, and since the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned it, we might just as well refresh the memory of the House in respect of the background to this fund. The hon. member made a plea to the effect that companies which do not form part of this fund at the moment, should be allowed to join it freely. Initially, when the consortium originated, quite a number of insurance companies pointed a revolver at the head of the hon. the Minister of Transport and made certain demands in connection with the increase of premiums. This involved considerable amounts which would have cost the country millions of rands if at that stage the Minister of Transport had yielded and carried on with the old set-up. When this company came into being, it was said by companies and organizations which were not included that this fund had no future and was headed for bankruptcy. All sorts of predictions were made. But, strangely enough, now that a number of companies have undertaken to co-operate with the Minister, after pulling up their socks and creating a healthy state of affairs in motor insurance, now it has all of a sudden become an attractive fund, now there are companies which are looking at the fund with a great deal of interest and are very keen to join it. What happened under the old set-up before this company was established? There was so-called reinsurance by companies which sent profits overseas. There were numerous overseas insurance companies whose only interest in South Africa was an office, a telephone number and probably a post office box. Their one and only registered office did not consist of more than that, and under the pretext of reinsurance they sent funds out of the country. That was very attractive business, and then, from time to time, they made demands on the Minister for premiums to be raised. Certain companies have now entered into an agreement which is being embodied in the fund, and this will be continued on a sound basis. Now these people come along and they are very keen to join this fund. But as I understand this legislation, there is provision for that in any case. As I read it, the State President can make provision for that in any case, and automatically, after ten years, when the original agreement expires, it is possible for the whole situation to be revised from scratch. The people who initially pointed a revolver at his head, should not cry now about their being excluded while other companies undertook to do it.

Some of the companies which made those threats, are in the consortium, and you know that.

It is very interesting to hear that remark of the hon. member, and I shall be grateful if he would go into more detail so that we may discuss it in further detail. He is levelling a vague, general sort of accusation. I wish he had given more details when he had the floor, because in that case we would have been able to discuss it very effectively. The objects of this fund, which are important and are stated in the legislation for that reason, are to ensure that compensation is paid to a person who is injured in a motor car accident. In the old set-up this did not exist and there were certain shortcomings. Now we undoubtedly have the assurance that compensation is and will be available to the person who sustains injuries in this manner.

In passing I should like to refer to something specific, and I hope the Minister will pay attention to it. At the moment there is a very large number of Bantu motor drivers on our roads. I do not think any distinction is drawn between White and Bantu drivers in the accident rates and statistics at our disposal. I would be grateful if, with the means at his disposal and also through this fund, the Minister would inquire into and ascertain what percentage of road accidents is caused by untrained Bantu drivers. I think it would be very illuminating. The other day I was reading about a case where the forging of drivers’ licences for Bantu drivers cropped up. I shall not discuss it any further, Sir, because you will not allow me to do so. I want to talk about the legitimate Bantu drivers. I am of the opinion that our present accident statistics are to a very large extent caused by untrained Bantu motor drivers. As a result of that, those of us who drive cars in this country, every motor driver, our roads, our insurance companies, and now this fund as well, are saddled with an unfair burden. This is caused by untrained and half-trained Bantu motor drivers. I am convinced that if this matter is investigated, we would find that it would be possible to make fewer payments out of this fund if a distinction could be drawn between these two groups.

To come back to the hon. member for Yeoville: I believe that this legislation is just, I believe that it is important for these companies, which under difficult circumstances did the work when nobody else wanted to do it, to carry on, and that is why it is a great pleasure for us to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down does the companies who were in the original third party insurance scheme less than justice. Our companies here are always registered by the Registrar of Insurance Companies and they are companies of standing.

To come back to this Bill. It is a third-party Bill, and up to clause 8 it makes administrative adjustments. From clause 8 onwards there is a complete departure in that it establishes the Motor Vehicle Insurance Company, it does away with the old company which we had, as the hon. the Minister said. Under the new section 25C contained in clause 9 one sees that this new fund to be set up will take over the entire risk of all 16 companies. The 16 companies forming the consortium will carry no risks at all. As a matter of fact, they will take over the administration. In truth what will happen, is this. This company will become the main company, which will be Government-controlled, and the Minister has powers here to appoint a manager. The 16 companies of the consortium will become super-agents. One has only to read their balance sheets to see how well they do out of it. These 16 companies will be passing on the money to this M.V.A. company and they will receive 20 per cent, which is not bad. They in turn will pay their sub-agents 5 per cent. What is really happening to-day with these 16 companies is the third-party insurers who were canvassed originally, are canvassed again by these companies, and there is very little other business and very little division among the companies. They retain the business. With this change the need for this consortium of 16 companies falls away. It is wrong for us to pay 20 per cent to these 16 companies as collecting agents. The time will come when this M.V.A. company will say the claims made on it are such that it might have to ask the motorist to pay a higher premium. We should really say to them, “Let us rather cut your commission”. The Government can open it wide to all the other companies and say, “We will pay you 10 per cent collection fees”. It should bring in all the companies recognized and registered by the Registrar of Insurance Companies. Because, Sir, I say the need for the consortium has now fallen away. We will have this company with all this money. We can see the tendency for the whole of motor vehicle insurance to become a Government-operated concern when the agreement lapses within the next few years.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Prior to the suspension of business, I was pointing out that this new fund, the M.V.A. Fund, which was being created would take over and reinsure all the risks of the 16 companies which are parties to the agreement. But, Sir, it goes further. To give you an idea of the size of this fund, under the new section 25D (1) the Minister may appoint a manager. I do not want to weary the House, but if those hon. members who have the Bill before them read the proposed new section 25C, it will give them a pretty shrewd idea as to what this fund is going to do. It is in fact taking over the whole of this insurance. The companies concerned will purely be agents of the M.V.A. fund. Under those circumstances there is no reason why the Minister should not give consideration to the question of bringing in the other companies, which are all registered by the Registrar of Insurance and which are all companies of standing …

What clause are you discussing?

I am discussing the proposed new section 25C contained in clause 9.

The Deputy Minister probably does not know the contents of the Bill.

I am discussing the insurance risks which this fund is taking over. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has read the Bill but it is quite clear …

He is starting to read it now.

If he reads clauses 8 and 9 he will get the gist of the Bill before him. There is no reason why the other companies should not be admitted as super-agents, and I cannot see any reason why, in view of the high commissions paid and the possible streamlining, there should be any increase in insurance premiums to motorists. These companies would only be super-agents now; this Bill proves that. The M.V.A. company will take over the entire work. All that the super-agents will do is to collect the money, take off the 25 per cent commission, and send the balance to the M.V.A. fund. They will take no risk. The complete risk will be reinsured. This fund will do all the work. These agents will only require clerks to transmit the money to the fund. That is all they will be doing. If the hon. the Deputy Minister reads that clause, he will find that the whole story is there. I am convinced that he has not read the Bill.

Who is going to settle all the claims?

And investigate?

Sir, the hon. the Minister himself has not read the Bill. Sir, the position is quite clear. The proposed new section 25C empowers the M.V.A. fund to investigate and settle claims and commence, conduct, defend or abandon legal proceedings. This is the M.V.A. fund. The M.V.A. fund is going to indemnify registered companies against claims, law suits, losses, costs and damages which may flow from the application of the Act. Originally when we spoke on this particular measure years ago we realized the direction which this company would take, and what we predicted then is happening to-day. This is slowly but surely becoming a Government-controlled corporation. I see no reason why this field should not be opened to all the other insurance companies.

The hon. member for Salt River was very far off the mark. I therefore suspect that he only entered into debate in order to give other members the opportunity of being absent. But before I come to the misunderstanding under which he finds himself, I want to refer briefly to a few important principles which arise from this Bill. Amongst other things, further provision is being made here in terms of which insurance companies may, before they negotiate third-party insurance, demand that the vehicle must have a roadworthy certificate, or even that it should be taken to a site where it can be tested. All these steps are being taken in order to protect the public and to make sure that they are not exposed any further to vehicles which are not roadworthy. Consequently it is a very important provision and a very important principle which is being laid down here, and I think that insurance companies which have an interest in the consortium should take cognizance of this and that they should not, as was the case in the past, disregard the provisions of a section of the Act, because it is in the interests of the public that this provision be observed properly. Previously vehicles were used on the road for several weeks—in fact, one can even say months if one may make use of personal knowledge in this debate—without being properly roadworthy; temporary permits were issued left, right and centre, and I want to repeat that the insurance companies should take cognizance of the fact that what the legislator envisages here, is that they should exercise those powers in the interests of the public, because one always hears complaints about insurance premiums which are soaring, but the basic things are not being handled correctly, and these are, inter alia, to make sure that all vehicles which are on the road, are roadworthy. For that reason I want to repeat that there is a very close link between unroadworthy vehicles and the insurance premium, and here we have the opportunity to put this matter right.

Sir, I told you that the hon. member for Salt River was very far off the mark, but I can well understand that. We are dealing here with intricate agreements, and in recent times we have seen that the United Party is definitely neither capable of drafting binding agreements nor of drafting agreements which can be enforced. That is why it is really a pleasure to me to point out to the hon. member for Salt River that the matter he debated already exists in practice. If he had taken the trouble to look up the third-party insurance legislation, he would have found that, in the form of a schedule to this legislation, an agreement had already been entered into with the insurance company known as the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund. This is the fund which is now being established statutorily and which will in the future be a statutory body, subject to certain provisions. What actually existed in practice, was that there was an agreement between the Minister and a group of insurance companies. In turn, those insurance companies formed another company, i.e. the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund (Pty.) Limited. That is why an agreement was entered into between these three parties, the details of which we need not know at present, but the fact remains that this is a de facto situation which is now being embodied in legislation. In addition the hon. member said that an opportunity had to be created for insurance companies to enter this field. But he must bear in mind that when this fund was established, it was immediately after there had been a large number of bankruptcies in this field. In this regard I mention to you Auto Protection and Parity. At that stage the State intervened and invited insurance companies to join this fund, and they were not prepared to do so, but now that it has proved to be a success, they want to join. Is this not a case of being too late?

A further important aspect which has arisen from this Bill, is that what has existed in practice, is now being placed on a proper basis, for it will be possible to apply certain provisions of the Companies Act in respect of this fund. This is an autonomous body, and to say that these insurance companies merely serve as agents, is not true, because basically the agreement has been entered into with them and they take out reinsurance with that fund, which becomes a statutory body. They take out reinsurance there—this is a very important aspect. There cannot be any question of agencies, and consequently I want to repeat that the hon. member for Salt River is very far off the mark. Seen as a whole, this Bill serves the interests of the public and its object is to afford the public more and more protection, and that is why I support this Bill.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said in passing that one of the reasons for the consortium was the fact that Parity went insolvent. I should like to suggest that one of the reasons why Parity went insolvent was because the Government ignored the warnings they were given.

Nonsense!

The hon. member for Middelburg gave us something of the past history of motor vehicle insurance and he spoke about the difficulties that occurred in that regard. He also went on to point out that the hon. the Minister took over third party insurance and formed a consortium, but the interesting thing is that he originally formed this consortium with 11 companies and then he increased it to 16 companies, and of the 16 eight companies were hardly heard of before the Minister formed his consortium. I would suggest that this consortium was a Godsend to many companies.

Order! Under what clause is the hon. member discussing that point?

I am discussing it under the new section 25C.

With respect, Sir, may I draw your attention to clause 8, which specifically refers to insurance companies that may become members of this consortium?

The hon. member for Middelburg said that all these companies now wanted to join the consortium. I would suggest to the hon. member that not only did the insurance companies want to join the consortium, but many other people too, because what business in South Africa guarantees a 25 per cent gross profit for any kind of operation? [Interjections.] I am not wrong, Sir. The hon. member overlooks the fact that in the consortium the companies receive 25 per cent gross of the premium to hand, of which they may or may not pay 5 per cent commission. The other 20 per cent is to run the business, and beyond that they do not settle claims. I will give an example to the hon. member for Middelburg. One of the companies of the consortium showed a loss last year of R118,000 but its commission was R180,000 on this type of insurance. That is why I say that the consortium was a Godsend to many insurance companies. If insurance companies can be guaranteed 20 per cent net, I would suggest to the Deputy Minister that every insurance company in South Africa and a few that may still be formed would like to climb in on this—I was going to say “racket”—band-wagon or business which is operating at present.

Would you like to be a director?

Yes, the hon. member for Middelburg said that this consortium was formed to keep the premiums down. I would like to tell this House that I would almost guarantee that the premiums the public pay will be increased within the next two or three years. It is so obvious, if one understands this business. I would like to refer the Deputy Minister to a summary of the M.V.A. Fund’s position after three years. I would suggest that we should be given far more detail about this fund, because if one looks at it it looks a little too neat. I would like to know what is going to happen to the profits of the M.V.A. Fund when they start showing profits, and I suggest to the Deputy Minister that we should be given far more details about the income and expenditure of this consortium.

I should like to support the hon. member for Salt River when he suggested that the consortium companies have become nothing but agents. They carry no risk in settling the claims. The Deputy Minister need not shake his head. They do not take a single risk in regard to claims. All they have to do is to run the business and investigate claims up to a certain point, and they have the running expenses of collecting the premiums. I would suggest that any company would like to operate in that way. Since the consortium companies are now virtually only agents of the consortium—because that is all they are—I see no reason why the other insurance companies in South Africa cannot be added to the consortium. It does not make any sense whatsoever when one remembers that the biggest insurance companies in South Africa—and I do not want to name them—are not members of this consortium. Since they have the facilities to handle claims and handle agents, etc., there is no reason whatsoever why they should not be members of this consortium. It would seem to me that any logic which excludes some of the biggest companies in South Africa from this consortium makes the whole idea of the consortium so much nonsense. The bigger the companies, the better service they could render. I would further suggest to the Deputy Minister that if he were to look at the balance sheets of the consortium companies he would find not that they are making 1.2 per cent or 1 per cent, as we were told last year, but if he pays closer examination to their balance sheets he will find that a great deal of the money received for third-party insurance is being used in other departments such as their fire departments, motor departments and accident departments. I know that this is a fact and that this is happening in a good many of the consortium companies. So when they tell the Minister that they are making .1 per cent or .2 per cent on the consortium income, that is not quite in keeping with the facts.

The other point I should like to raise in this connection is that at present a commission of 5 per cent is paid to agents, on this type of insurance, but since this type of insurance is compulsory, has it ever occurred to the Government that since no commission is paid on radio licences or motor-car licences and other types of licences, why is commission paid on this sort of insurance since it is compulsory anyway? I see no reason at all why commission should be paid on this type of insurance.

I should also like to remind the Deputy Minister that when I raised the matter some time ago, about agents and this type of insurance, I said that greengrocers, barber-shops and people like that were acting as agents, and a later report we received conveyed the information that this type of agency was being done away with. I would like to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that that is not my information and that my own eyesight tells me that that is not the case. There are still hundreds and hundreds of people who are agents of the consortium, who are barbers, greengrocers, and so on. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head when I talk of these things, but I honestly believe that he does not know anything about this subject.

What do you know about the subject?

A lot. An instruction was given to the consortium companies not many months ago that they were to discontinue to a very large extent employing the services of assessors and attorneys in the investigation of claims. The consortium companies were given this instruction that they were not to use assessors and attorneys to the extent that they have been doing in the past. I suggest that this will only have the result of increasing claims and of a further poor service to the public. This has already been the result as any assessor or attorney handling this type of insurance claim will tell you. In conclusion I would like to repeat what I said last year, namely that it is my view that the consortium companies are making excessive profits. I believe that the 25 per cent they are receiving is not to the benefit of the motoring public of South Africa and it will do well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to investigate the 16 companies of this consortium to ensure that the premiums they receive from third-party insurance, goes to third-party insurance running expenses and not to some other source.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that these hon. members did not read the Bill and do not know the law. Secondly, it is very clear that these hon. members—and I think one of them was a member of the select committee when the inquiry into third-party insurance in South Africa took place—have completely forgotten what the situation was in South Africa in regard to third-party insurance. I think the hon. member for Yeoville was that member.

He was not a member of that select committee.

Then I shall accept that that was the case. All these members had access to the report of that select committee because it was a select committee that was appointed by this Parliament. It was, therefore, the responsibility of those members, who have now taken part in this discussion, to have known what was said in the report of that select committee. However, they are simply not interested. These hon. members, and I might as well start with the last speaker, i.e. the hon. member for Port Natal, did not even speak about this Bill at all. I want to point out that the hon. member for Port Natal, as did the hon. member for Yeoville, as did the hon. member for Salt River, that all of them pleaded for more members to be included in the consortium. In the Bill which is being discussed at the moment, there is no clause under which they can plead for that or even discuss it. I simply fail to see how they could read that into and discuss it under this Bill.

You are now casting reflections on the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

These hon. members are pleading here for an agreement between the State President and the consortium, something for which no provision is made in this Bill and which is not affected by this Bill at all. The hon. member for Port Natal says—and I just want to put this right for the record—that these companies, the members of the consortium, are merely acting as agents and nothing else and that for doing so they receive, according to him, 25 per cent of the commission, without any risks and without any work. They are merely collectors. Then he compares them to the Post Office, which is a State institution, which collects radio licence fees, or he compares them to the municipalities which handle motor licence fees for the Provincial Administration, which in turn is a semi-State organization. These are people who collect licence fees only. After all, the hon. member ought to know that the members of the consortium are granted this 20 per cent in respect of their administrative costs …

Twenty-five per cent.

Twenty per cent. That 20 per cent does not include collection or the issue of the discs. It is compensation for investigating accidents and the procedure of seeing to the final settlement of the claim. That is why the 20 per cent is provided. I want to remind the hon. House that in the original Act provision was made for a premium committee and an advisory committee. Those committees must look up the necessary statistics, must always conduct investigations and then they can recommend to the hon. the Minister whether the premiums ought to be raised or lowered and what this agreement in regard to the commission embraces. The facts of the case prove that, before this legislation was introduced by the Government, third-party insurance in South Africa was in a chaotic position. It was in such a chaotic position that the bankruptcy to which the hon. member referred, was not the only one with which we were faced, but that premiums soared. It appears further that as a very result of the fact that we fixed this administrative cost and the fee for the agents at 20 plus 5 per cent, it has proved to be a saving for us and that up to the present we have saved R20 million which we have in the fund to use.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to go further. I have already mentioned what the hon. member for Yeoville said in regard to the admission of other members to the fund. I want to tell him and the House straight away that there is an agreement which was entered into for a period of ten years and which cannot be broken unilaterially. How can the hon. member now ask under this clause, in terms of which the status quo will be preserved, for this 10-year agreement to be broken and a new agreement to be entered into from scratch? This Bill merely makes it possible for the hon. the Minister to have full control, as a result of the fact that the present reinsurance company is being converted into this fund, which is an autonomous body and of which the Minister appoints the manager. This is not envisaged for in this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that these hon. members have not read the Bill. The hon. member for Salt River says that the total risk is now taken by the Fund, and in view of the fact that the total risk is taken by the Fund, he says that these companies should no longer be entitled to the 20 per cent in respect of administrative costs. Sir, you have heard what the hon. member for Bloemfontein mentioned to him, namely that these companies would even have to go so far as to test the roadworthiness of these vehicles. They must conduct all the investigations and do all the work. This fund is nothing but a re-insurance fund to ensure that no bankruptcies occur, that it will be possible to settle claims arising from accidents caused by unidentified motor cars, etc. The hon. member did not read the Bill at all. As I said a moment ago, section 24 is not under discussion now. The percentage agents get is not relevant in this Act.

If that is the case, in what Act is it relevant?

In the principal Act. We are now dealing with amending legislation. [Interjections.] No, that is not relevant in the principal Act either, because it is done by way of agreement only. The principal Act makes provision for that.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would read clause 9, section 25C?

Mr. Speaker, I have already given this House a full explanation of clause 9, section 25C. It has no bearing on the premiums, commission or the administrative fees, for those matters are embodied in the agreement the State President concluded with the consortium. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the 20 per cent commission is used to investigate claims. Would he then explain the proposed section 25C (d)?

But, surely, that is very clear. That is the duty of the companies. The fund exercises supervision all the time. At the moment it is the duty of the Secretary for Transport to do the administrative work for the re-insurance company. Together with his inspectorate he conducts all these investigations.

No!

Order!

This section provides that the M.V.A. Fund now has the power to do these things.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must do his homework first.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, although the fund is now empowered to settle and handle claims, the domestic agreement provides that the companies will handle all claims on behalf of the fund. That is the purpose for which these companies are getting this 20 per cent commission. However, since the fund bears the responsibility, it must be provided in the Act that the fund may conduct investigations, although in terms of the agreement this is done by the companies on behalf of the fund.

You were wrong a moment ago when you said that …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Middelburg raised the question of Bantu drivers. I just want to point out that this is a provincial matter in which we cannot involve ourselves. However, I believe that there is in fact a ray of hope in this new amending legislation as far as the roadworthiness of motor cars is concerned. It is precisely the large number of Bantu motor cars which presents us with the greatest problems as far as the accident rate is concerned.

I want to conclude by pointing out that the hon. member for Port Natal wants to compare the consortium with, firstly, the provincial administration, the municipalities and the Port Office, as regards the collection of licence fees. Secondly, he wants to compare it with greengrocers who act as agents for other people. I cannot see where he reads that in the Act and, therefore, how he can make such a speech.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am sure that this Bill will be welcomed by everyone. Hon. members will remember that during the discussion of my Vote last year, I gave an indication that legislation in connection with legal aid might be necessary. In the meantime there have been further negotiations in regard to this matter. There have been discussions between my Department, representatives of the Association of Law Societies, the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, etc., and this Bill is a result of those discussions, but a little more about this later on.

One can in all probability write volumes on the subject of legal aid rendered in this country and overseas. Consequently I do not intend giving a comprehensive survey of the system of legal aid as it has been functioning or is functioning in other countries or locally, because these systems differ from country to country as regards the form of control, the type of cases to which it is applicable, etc. In spite of that, however, all forms of legal aid probably have one thing in common, and that is to make legal aid available to indigent persons without their having to pay anything for such aid, with the possible exception of actual expenditure incurred.

As regards legal aid in South Africa, legal aid bureaux existed in the larger centres of the country from time to time, and these bureaux made it their object to render legal aid to indigent persons. In the main these bureaux were administered by the law societies of the various provinces by means of subsidies provided by the State for that purpose. One of the shortcomings of the legal aid bureaux we had up to now, was the fact that a considerable section of the country’s population could not be reached because of the limited number of bureaux. A few years ago a new legal aid scheme was elaborated in consultation with the Council of the Bar, the Association of Law Societies and other interested parties. At present this scheme is still in operation, although it is not functioning in all centres. Of course, one of the major shortcomings of the present scheme is that legal practitioners have to work free of charge.

Because there was, and still is, a constant need for an effective legal aid scheme, the Association of Law Societies elaborated a legal aid scheme, which in the opinion of the Association would serve its purpose, and submitted that to me for my consideration. In view of the fact that this proposed scheme would have involved a too large organization, it was not acceptable. With the co-operation of my Department attempts were then made to work out a scheme on a simplified basis. The Bill at present before this House is a result of those attempts. Here I have to mention, of course, that the legal profession held definite viewpoints in connection with some aspects. Some concessions were made, whereas other aspects will have to be smoothed out in practice during the operation of the scheme. The various legal professions nevertheless undertook to make every attempt to obtain the co-operation of their members as regards the implementation of the proposed legal aid scheme, and their co-operation naturally is essential for making a success of the scheme.

Naturally the particulars of the scheme are not spelled out in detail in this Bill. From the nature of the case it is not possible to embody full instructions in a Bill of this nature. What is more, to do so would simply impose unnecessary restrictions. Here we are making an attempt to regulate by legislation a scheme which has been functioning according to administrative methods up to now, and which has not produced the expected results. Therefore it should be given the opportunity to evolve fully without hampering restrictions having been imposed which would ultimately prove to have been more to the disadvantage than to the advantage of the scheme. Clause 8 and subclauses (9) to (11) of clause 9 ensure sufficient official control over the scheme.

Clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for the establishment of the proposed Legal Aid Board. Clause 3 is an important one, because it sets out the objects and general powers of the Board in broad outline. This provision ought to enable the Board to work out an effective legal aid scheme and, in co-operation with the legal profession, a basis on which legal practitioners may be compensated for their services in legal aid cases. The provisions of this clause are wide so that legal aid may be rendered in criminal as well as in civil cases.

In connection with the question of imposing conditions on which legal aid will be rendered, there are two aspects I should like to mention in this regard. The first is in connection with pro deo defence in capital cases. As hon. members know, the good and established practice of the court appointing an advocate, in consultation with the Council of the Bar concerned, to act on behalf of an accused in capital cases, i.e. cases in which the death penalty may be imposed, if the accused himself has not appointed his own legal representative, has been followed for many years. This is usually done in cases where the accused cannot afford the services of a legal representative. As far as this scheme is concerned, it is not at all the intention to interfere with this. In other words, it will continue to exist. Furthermore, there is of course the basic difference as regards the object of the two schemes. Pro deo defence is not only for indigent persons but for everyone whose life is being threatened. If a millionaire has not briefed his own advocate we would supply even him with a pro deo defence. The State is therefore going to continue with this pro deo scheme, and the legal aid scheme envisaged by this Bill will consequently not affect the existing arrangement as regards capital cases.

The second aspect I want to mention is that the principle of this Bill indeed is, subject to what I have just said, to render assistance to indigent litigants and accused persons. This naturally presupposes a means test, inter alia, which will have to be applied and which may differ from area to area. In any event, somebody will have to determine whether an applicant qualifies. Now we know from experience that most of the recidivists are layabouts and work-dodgers. As a matter of fact, crime actually is their profession. Possibly all of them will qualify in terms of the means test. The question is whether people like that should also be assisted. If legal aid is to give rise to the State having to guarantee to the skolly element who loaf about, snatch handbags, steal purses, and remove money from people’s pockets, the additional security of being defended free of charge by legal practitioners provided by the authorities when they appear in court. I can say even at this early stage that the writing is on the wall. I want to put it very clearly that I shall never be a party to subsidizing crime. Therefore the Legal Aid Board, according to its own good judgment, will have to identify the cases which ought to qualify for legal aid, and this means that the question of providing aid will have to be dealt with selectively.

Clause 4 lays down the constitution of the Board. The constitution is such that the various fields of the administration of justice have representation on the Board. Because we are in fact dealing with a social service here, the inclusion of the Secretary for Social Welfare in the Board is self-evident. As specialized knowledge with regard to any other field may prove to be necessary for the effective functioning of the Board, provision is being made for the appointment of a member by the Minister. The rest of the clause deals with the appointment of alternates to act in the stead of any members, the length of the term of office of members and their remuneration. Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 relate to procedural instructions.

Clause 9 is important as it lays down how the Board is to acquire and utilize its funds in order to achieve its objectives. The provisions of this clause are self-explanatory and consequently require no further elucidation.

With this, Sir, I think I have said enough about the broad principles of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me relieve the hon. the Minister’s mind at once by indicating that we will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. The only surprise there is at this stage, is the time it has taken this Government to produce something in the way of legislation in this field. This matter has been talked about for years and years; it has been necessary for even more years. We are delighted that at last something, inadequate though it may prove to be, has at least been brought to this House.

I would not like to describe this Bill as “the passing of the buck”, as they say in the vernacular, because as originally framed and conceived by the Department, this legislation provided in fact for the sort of framework which exists in the only country with a similar sort of legal system, namely Britain. Understandably, there was difficulty as to what matters should fall within the right of the accused to have legal aid, and so on. So, Sir, this is perhaps the sensible way to deal with the matter, namely, to pass the decision as to what people should have legal aid, to a board comprised of practitioners, a Judge and representatives of the various departments concerned, for example the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Justice itself, the State Attorney and the Attorney-General.

We look forward to the board being formed. We look forward to this board formulating those matters in respect of which legal aid may be obtained by the citizen who may be involved in a civil dispute, which is an expensive matter for him to indulge in. Probably many people do not indulge in litigation when they should indulge in litigation, because they cannot afford it. This is quite apart from persons accused in a criminal court.

You are not speaking professionally now, are you?

No, Sir. I am looking forward to this Bill working so that I could then find myself in a position that I could not and should not, in terms of the rules of this House, speak about this Bill at all, because of my professional interest.

I think that legal aid in our modern society is as important in many respects as medical aid. People have their rights in law, but they do not generally know what those rights are, and generally they cannot afford to find out what they are. I say that with full appreciation of the fact that there are, as the hon. the Minister has conceded, many thousands of people who obtain legal advice, who get, in fact, legal representation in court without the payment of a penny on their part, because they fall within the category of our in forma pauperis rules or pro deo rules, or whatever it may be.

There are on the other hand thousands of people who fall outside that pecuniary requirement. You have to be a pauper to get this advice. The fact that at the moment you are just less than a pauper or just more than a pauper will determine whether in fact you will receive advice as to what your rights are under our laws. This is, therefore, the most welcome and most necessary advance that has taken place recently in the ordered ways of our society.

This is an experiment. We support the Second Reading of this Bill without waiving any of our rights to deal with this legislation from a different point of view at a later stage. This is quite obviously an experiment and if it fails we will make other suggestions. I think divorces are one of the things that legal practitioners spend most of their time dealing with. I think they spend a lot of their time dealing with matrimonial matters. I think that every hon. member in this House who is a legal practitioner will agree that we spend more of our time dealing with in forma pauperis divorces and other in forma pauperis matrimonial matters concerning custody and the myriad other matters that follow from the break-up of a marital union, than anything else. One wonders whether this should not be regarded as a luxury item rather than as a kind of penny theatre where you pay your penny and you “takes your choice”. This is what has happened. I wonder what proportion of the matrimonial matters that come before our Supreme Courts are to-day in fact in forma pauperis or ought to be in forma pauperis, and what proportion in fact concerns normal divorces and other matrimonial matters which are paid for in the usual way. [Interjections.] My hon. friend asks whether divorces are normal. I can only say that divorces are a fact of life and a part of life. Divorces are certainly something in respect of which “Yer pays your penny and yer take yer choice” should not be the rule of thumb for going to court.

When we discussed this matter some time ago we had hoped that we would adopt some system similar to the system which has been adopted in Great Britain. Such a system could have been adapted to our own particular circumstances. We feel that that system has proved successful. We appreciate that there are certain circumstances which are peculiar to South Africa. We cannot of course adopt the system precisely as it operates in Great Britain but I do believe that if we could have a similar system in South Africa it would be of great benefit to everyone.

The thing that is required to make that system, or any other system work, is money. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not wax lyrical in this regard at all. I do not know how much money the hon. the Minister expects will be provided for in the Estimates for this purpose, or whether it is going to be put on this year’s Estimates. We know that the necessary money is the teeth of the system. It is all very well having this Bill before the House but it cannot work unless there is enough money to make it work. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us in his reply what amount of money he anticipates will be placed on the Estimates for this purpose.

As a start.

Yes, initially such an amount could only serve to get the system off the ground. We have heard an amount of R200.00Ó mentioned, but this is just a rumour in the bazaars as we have not heard officially that this amount will be voted. Such an amount might be sufficient to staff this organization. We have also heard mention of an amount of R50,000, in which case this Bill is a waste of time. If this system is to work, we must talk in terms of millions of rand and not in terms of R50.000 or R200.000.

You are getting closer to the actual amount.

I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to what he thinks it will in fact cost to get this system off the ground and how much he thinks it will cost to keep the system going once that has been done.

The hon. the Minister mentioned pro deo defence. As the hon. the Minister rightly said a legal practitioner will appear pro deo for someone no matter who that person is. If a man is charged with a capital offence and he has to appear in our Supreme Court he has a right to pro deo defence. The State provides such defence. There are occasions when people reject this pro deo defence, perhaps because when they look at the person who has been appointed to defend them they do not feel quite as confident as they would have felt if alone. The hon. the Minister is of course quite right when he says that even millionaires are entitled to pro deo defence. But as a practitioner you do not of course become a millionaire doing this kind of work at the fees provided by the State. But that is another matter altogether. It is a matter in which I have a direct interest and in terms of the rules I should really not speak about it. It is, nevertheless, a matter to which I feel the hon. the Minister should give his attention.

I want to come now to something in the hon. the Minister’s speech which troubles me. We have here a perfectly acceptable Bill which was drafted after consultation with the legal profession. Then the hon. the Minister let slip that one little thing which was unfortunate because I might have misunderstood him. Perhaps he will explain just what he meant. The hon. the Minister said that this Bill was not going to be used to subsidize skollies.

Yes. It is not going to be used to subsidize crime.

But what is a skollie? Who determines who is entitled to legal aid and who is not? Here we have the basis of the whole matter. That is why I am so pleased that this matter will be dealt with by a board which will be evenly balanced because its members will be persons employed by the Government, legal practitioners, and a Judge who will be able to determine which way the scale will tip. The problem as to who determines who will receive legal aid and in what circumstances is very basic to the whole question of legal aid. According to the pro deo system in the Supreme Courts, if you are arraigned on a capital offence, no matter what offence and no matter who you are, no matter whether you are a skollie or not, you have the advantage of the State paying for counsel to appear for you. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he is not going to subsidize skollies.

I am not going to subsidize crime.

The hon. the Minister is not going to subsidize crime. How does one then distinguish between the person to whom we give State aid in the form of pro deo defence because he is charged with a capital offence and the person who is charged with a non-capital offence? In the one case we give this aid to everyone but we are going to pre-judge the issue in the other case. How does one determine whether one is in fact doing this. I remember that there was once a controversy as a result of a misunderstanding of what someone in the Department of Justice had said about this matter. This person asked why in respect of legal aid the State should pay to have its left hand undo what its right hand had done. What did he mean by this? What does that mean? Is this not really what the hon. the Minister is saying?

No.

I am delighted to hear it because last time this was raised we did not get an answer from the hon. the Minister because the time had expired. What is legal aid for in fact? Why do we provide it? We provide it because it is necessary and right under our system of justice that every person who is accused of some offence, or everyone who appears before the courts in order to determine whether he has a right—and prima facie has one—should have the benefit of the services of an expert, of a lawyer, of a person who is trained in the ways of determining his right, in a criminal or a civil court. And only that court can determine whether he has that right or not. Surely that is why we do it, and in the ideal situation everyone who appears before a court should have a legal representative.

There is no judicial officer, whether in the Supreme Court, whether in the regional courts or whether in the magistrates’ courts who will not say at once that he would prefer to have an accused or a litigant represented by counsel. Not only does it save time but one gets to the root of the matter, to the heart of the matter, and one can deal with the matter properly in accordance with the rules which we have been developing over hundreds of years. Sir, surely that is the principle of legal aid. I think the hon. the Minister will accept that; that is the basis upon which we look at this matter. The ideal situation is that everyone should be defended.

That is not practical.

I agree that in this country it is absolutely impracticable. One cannot afford to provide counsel for everyone who appears in our criminal courts if you consider that there were, if my memory serves me correctly, something like a million charges under the pass laws in a recent year. Obviously you cannot have it in every circumstance because you cannot afford it, but the principle is nevertheless that in those cases where it is practicable there should, if possible. be legal representation. We regard a man’s life as being a matter of importance. If a man is on trial for his life it is important, and we have recognized this for years and years and we have said that he shall have legal aid.

Because his life is at stake.

Yes, because his life is at stake, because he is charged with either treason or murder or rape or robbery with aggravating circumstances or housebreaking with aggravating circumstances or kidnapping or one of the other capital offences. The list is getting longer and longer every year. A person charged with one of these crimes is given legal aid, but the life of a man who is charged under the Immorality Act is also at stake. Very few people charged with murder in our courts are hanged.

I do not tie the hands of the board.

No, I agree, but what I want to point out is that this principle should apply to someone charged under the Immorality Act and to white people who are tried before the regional magistrates, for example, whose lives are also at stake. Take the case of someone who has been defamed. These are matters which can affect a man’s life just as much as being charged with murder.

Murder would be preferable.

Sir, I hope I did not misunderstand the hon. the Minister when he said that he was not going to subsidize crime. What does the hon. the Minister mean by that? We are not going to subsidize crime but we subsidize crime where the man’s life is at stake. We will subsidize crime where a man’s life is at stake but not to determine what his rights are. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain this, because this is somewhat at variance with the provisions of the Bill, and the Minister’s last remark that that is why he has a board because they (the Board) will determine it. Are they going to be told that they must determine the matter in the sense that they should not subsidize crime or are they not going to be told this?

No.

Then that is fine. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain just what he means and how he hopes the board is going to operate.

Mr. Speaker, we offer no objection to this Bill. It is a very good experiment. It is a start. We hope it is going to work but we will not hesitate to come back, and one wants to make one’s mark at this stage by saying that our support for this measure is not necessarily support for everything that may happen hereafter. We hope that the board will pursue its functions, and we hope that this Government will give the board enough money to make the system work, and we hope that we will develop here a system of legal aid which will become as much a part of our social system as the system of medical aid that we are developing.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful the hon. member for Durban (North) does not have to say grace at my table. He pronounced the benediction but he refused to say “Amen”. We have now been given a Bill for which the legal profession has been yearning for years. He himself said that we had been yearning for this for years, but, if I may change the idiom, he did not look this gift horse in the mouth, but he looked this gift Act in the preamble. We want to concede the point that there will be certain members of the legal profession who would have liked to have seen this Bill in a different form, but I am grateful to-night to have this opportunity of thanking the hon. the Minister. As an ex-member of a board of a law society in the Republic who shared in the preparatory work for this Bill. I am very grateful we have come this far. Throughout the years there have been negotiations, negotiations on a high level, and in the right spirit, and now we have this Bill. Sir, I know that the hon. member for Durban (North) is also pleased about this Bill but he pronounced a kind of reserved benediction. He said this was an experiment.

Sir, one cannot greet a new system such as this with that kind of disposition, because by doing so we shall be moving a motion of no-confidence in our own profession in anticipation.

Typical of the United Party.

I am convinced the legal profession in South Africa will not make an experiment of this system but the beginning of a special contribution to the administration of justice in the Republic. I have the fullest confidence in my colleagues in the profession. In my opinion the hon. member, in asking for some details, anticipated the work of this board to be established in terms of this Bill to a certain extent as though he wanted to tell them exactly what they would have to do and when they would have to do so.

My hon. colleague was somewhat concerned about the skollies. To-night he had the interest of the skollies at heart. Surely the hon. the Minister made it quite clear …

The Minister used the word.

Sir, if the hon. member had been paying attention to the debate and had not woken up only at this stage, he would have some knowledge of what was happening in this House. Yes, the word was used, also by the hon. member for Durban (North) who took the matter further, but the Minister had given him the assurance …

A skolly is a skolly.

Why is the Opposition so touchy?

The hon. the Minister gave the assurance on two occasions that pro deo aid would still be given. In other words, any skolly who will be on trial for his life will still be given legal aid as has been the case up to now. What better assurance do we want than this? As regards the question of subsidizing crime, surely that is a question in regard to which we have to exercise our common sense. It goes without saying that this legal aid which will be rendered through the services of the legal profession, voluntarily and with funds provided by this House, will have to be utilized in the spirit in which this machinery for legal aid has been requested by the profession. We must remember that the taxpayers will want to know whether their money has been properly utilized in the administration of justice for the promotion of justice, in other words, in a responsible way.

As I have said, I am grateful for this Bill. I am not going to say that this is an ideal solution. Is it ever possible for us to say that we are dealing with the ideal in a matter such as this? But we are making a very good beginning and therefore I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the introduction of this Bill, because in our legal profession, and particularly amongst the law societies of the four provinces, there has been a need for a system on which we could render community service on a proper legal basis. The experience throughout the years has been that free legal aid has always been given, and is still being given, to indigent persons on an ad hoc basis, in the discretion of the legal practitioner, and that we have come up against problems of professional etiquette in respect of rendering such assistance. Consequently we welcome the position that we shall now have a proper and legally well-ordered system according to which we shall be able to render this community service, which we have always been rendering, but which we shall now be able to channel along the lines of a proper system.

Say “thank you”.

I have expressed my gratitude and I have added an “Amen”. I trust the hon. member for Durban (North) will complete his prayer during the Third Reading. Sir, as far as this system of legal aid is concerned, I would say there is a requirement which consists of three parts. The first part which goes to make up this requirement is the benevolent co-operation of and a high professional sense of responsibility on the part of the legal profession. I think we may give the Minister the assurance, as far as this aspect is concerned, that this already exists. The second part is that there has to be the legal machinery through which to express that benevolence and that sense of responsibility; the machinery has now been created. The third part is that there must be the necessary funds which will be sufficient to carry the system and to put it into operation. This is a matter which the hon. the Minister need not discuss in detail now; he may do so if he wishes, but at the moment we are dealing with the principle of the Bill and this Legal Aid Board will, from the nature of the case, have to set the tests and lay down the norms as regards the way in which it is going to render this assistance. Sir, I want to thank the hon the Minister for creating this opportunity for the legal profession to render the service it has been yearning to render and which it has been rendering throughout the years; for having created the opportunity for the legal profession to render this community service and service to the nation on a proper and legally well-ordered basis. We thank the hon. the Minister for the Bill and we are also grateful for having received at least a blessing from that side and I trust that in due course we shall also hear the “Amen”.

I do not want to be quite as effusive as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus and say thanks and thanks and thanks, but I do want to say that if one looks at this measure before us I think we can accept that it is the first stage—I do not think it is more than that—of attempting to rationalize what has been the voluntary service rendered by the State in so far as prosecutions are concerned in the provision of defence counsel and by the legal profession generally as far as the conduct of legal matters is concerned. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not enlighten the House further as to what he feels will be done to deal with certain problems which I anticipate will immediately arise when this Bill is passed. He has indicated that he does not want to tie the hands of the Board and he wants to give the Board a free right of action in regard to the powers entrusted to it in terms of this Bill. But, first of all, there is a reference to indigent persons. Is it his intention that this is a matter which should be investigated by the Board and that the Board as such should produce some definition or some criteria whereby a person can be judged as to whether he is indigent or not? The Minister will be aware of the present in forma pauperis tests so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, which are adequate in certain types of litigation but certainly are not adequate when it comes to other matters where some assistance is required. Is it his intention that the determination of what is an indigent person should be a matter which the Board should go into under some regulation? I find that there is nothing in the Bill which empowers the Board to determine that. The objects of the Board are to render and make available legal aid to indigent persons, but who are to be the indigent persons, and how are they to be determined?

The second point that arises is the question of the practical implementation. I think the hon. members of this House who belong to the legal profession will know of the tremendous problems that have been faced in sifting the applications for assistance. Large numbers of people are involved in litigation whether civil or criminal, and they immediately regard themselves as worthy of some assistance, and they would offer themselves as indigent and therefore entitled to assistance under this type of scheme. We have attempted in the major cities, as the hon. the Minister is aware, through the Bar and Side Bar Associations, to run some sort of voluntary roster whereby these people are dealt with. Is it contemplated that the existing organization, the existing staff available in the magistrate’s courts and elsewhere, might act as sifting agencies in the first instance, or is it contemplated that a whole new department will be established with a staff to deal with persons who come for assistance? The hon. the Minister shakes his head. It is a problem which worries me and other members, and I presume it has worried the Minister as well, as to how this problem is to be dealt with. It was quite a different matter when, by way of some voluntary arrangement such as we had in Cape Town, and no doubt elsewhere, some kindly person interviewed the applicants and sent them on to the next attorney or counsel on the roster and said: Have a chat with these people and see whether they can help you. That was done on the basis of a voluntary act and there was no question of fees, but what was possible was done for that particular person. But now when a fee is involved, or the possibility of a fee is involved, where must the sifting be done?

The Board appoints its agents.

In clause 8 the reference is to officers or agents. It is intended that those should be persons independent from the existing court, or is the Minister leaving that with a question mark behind it as far as the Board is concerned? I welcome it if that is so, but I think we need clarity on it. If the Minister’s intention is that the Board in the first place shall determine who are indigent and the Board shall determine the type of cases in which there should be legal aid and the Board will establish its own agencies or agents to handle the sifting of applicants, those are the three points which are important. If that is the intention we will know how to deal with the Bill when it comes to the Committee Stage. I ask for enlightenment on those particular aspects.

Although I am fully aware of the fact that the law societies have done a tremendous amount of work to produce this Bill in the form it is before us tonight, and although I am not taking any credit whatsoever for the fact that this Bill is now being piloted through Parliament, you will allow me, Sir, to remind you in all modesty of the plea I addressed in a maiden speech on 24th August, 1966, to then Minister of Justice for the establishment of a better legal aid system than we had at that time. It is purely for that reason that I have risen to thank the present Minister of Justice and to congratulate him on this legal aid system we shall now be getting.

The underlying principle of any legal aid system is the fact that in our legal system we should not like to have the position that a person cannot put his case to our courts because of a lack of funds, and a good legal aid system always is a feature of the legal system of a mature state. But there is another aspect as far as this Bill is concerned. Our legal system is held in very high esteem abroad, but I just want to bring it to the attention of this House that when I told one of the ambassadors that a Bill like this was going to come before this House, he immediately asked me for a copy of the Bill because, he said, he wanted to report on the Bill to his Government as he was of the opinion that this was a particularly important Bill as far as our image abroad was concerned. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that this legal aid system which we are debating to-night will most definitely contribute to strengthening South Africa’s image abroad and to giving our legal system an ever higher esteem in the outside world.

Then I should like to thank other members of the legal profession, excluding myself, for the hard work they have been doing throughout the years, and the social service they have been rendering in respect of legal aid. When one has regard to the fact that 538 in forma pauperis cases came before the Transvaal Provincial Division in a single year, cases which were handled practically free of charge by attorneys and advocates, and that 508 pro deo cases came before the same Division in that same year, cases which were handled by attorneys and advocates for negligible fees, and when one has regard to the fact that there are seven such Divisions, one can form a picture of the social service which has been rendered virtually free of charge by the legal profession. We are always being accused that legal practitioners make a great deal of money, but I think it is only right that these facts should also be brought to the attention of the country.

I am very grateful for the fact that the pro deo aspect as such will not disappear on the introduction of this legal aid system. The pro deo system has been developed for capital crimes and this is a special kind of legal aid which should continue to exist. As far as criminal cases are concerned, I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister as regards his statement that we are not here to subsidize crime and criminals. Our experience has been that in the courts the presiding officer is there pre-eminently for considering the interests of an accused. You will find, Sir, that in cases where an accused is undefended, the magistrate or the Judge will do everything in his power at all times to explain such an accused’s rights to him and to ensure that justice will be done to him. Consequently as far as criminal cases are concerned, I want to suggest that the new board which is to be established will in the the main regard it as an important factor when a magistrage, a prosecutor or a Judge refers a case for legal aid. Those cases, I should suggest, would preeminently be the ones in which legal aid should be given. As far as civil cases are concerned, one would accept that the new board would not hold the view that aid should be given without exception in civil cases to people who cannot pay. In our administration of justice it is a fundamental principle that litigation should not be encouraged and it is very important that only those cases of indigent persons which really have any substance should come before the courts. In other words, the test which the board will apply is, in my modest opinion, whether the case has any chance of succeeding, whether it is a good case, and only if it is a good case, will legal aid be given.

With these few words I just want to congratulate the Minister once more on this Bill and I want to tell him that we in the legal profession welcome this Bill most heartily.

I thank hon. members on both sides of this House for the extent to which they have welcomed this measure. I do not regard what was said by the hon. member for Durban (North) as being completely qualified. I think he was merely looking for guidance with regard to what might cause trouble in his opinion. However, right at the outset I want to say that some misunderstanding apparently arose when I referred to skollies. I did not simply speak of skollies; I spoke of the skolly who loafed about, snatched handbags, stole purses and removed money from the pockets of other people. This is the type of skolly I referred to, and I hope that is clear now. I repeat that I am not prepared to make legal aid available to that type of skolly.

Then I should like to inform the hon. member for Green Point as follows. He asked whether the board would have to identify. The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, in my Second Reading speech I used the following words, “Therefore the Legal Aid Board, according to its own good judgment, will have to identify the cases which ought to qualify for legal aid”. That is the answer. After we had groped about a great deal about this question of legal aid, we came to the conclusion that it was simply impossible to write into this Bill which persons should receive aid and which should not. We then hit on the idea of rather creating a board consisting of members of the profession and on which all Government authorities which are concerned in the matter will have representation and to leave it to these people to decide at their meetings and according to the funds at their disposal which people they can help and what aid they can give. Here we are not concerned with paying for all litigation; we are concerned with legal aid and that board will have to decide on and will have to identify the type of litigation it is prepared to pay for.

We now come to the question of funds. I take it that what the profession naturally would like to see is that a very large sum of money be voted immediately. We are allowing ourselves to get carried away; as an hon. member said, “We are getting off the ground”. We should bear the fact in mind that this board first has to be constituted, that the various law societies have to make their nominations, that the Council of the Bar has to make its nomination and that a suitable Judge has to be found. In addition there will have to be negotiations with the various departments and therefore it will take a little time before we shall be able to get these people going. They will have to meet and they will first have to decide what they are going to do. They will have to decide whether they are going to assist the skolly who snatches handbags or whether they are not going to assist him. This, in my opinion, is the first matter on which they will have to decide. Secondly, I take it that the representative of the Council of the Bar will suggest whether something ought to be done in connection with divorce cases. The representatives of the various law societies will report on the cases they deal with in the courts and in respect of which they feel assistance ought to be rendered. In this way this board will apply its own tests. Hon. members want to know in anticipation what sum of money will be made available. I may as well tell hon. members now, because provision will be made for this in the Estimates. As a start, and in respect of the first year, before we know precisely what will be required or what we shall be prepared to consider, it has been felt that if an amount of R50,000 were made available it ought to be sufficient. Now hon. members should not say straightaway that this is too little. This amount of R50.000 will only have to cover cases for approximately six months and this period will be at the beginning of the scheme when decisions will still have to be taken as to what kind of cases ought to receive assistance. This board will have to appoint its agents throughout the country. If the board wants to be careful and wise it should make use of the services of Government departments as much as possible. That is what I would have done; I do not know whether the board will do so. However, I am not going to tie their hands.

They are going to receive this amount of R50.000 and if they want to spend it in a certain way, they may do so. This Bill provides that this board has to submit an annual report on its activities to the Minister, and I shall table the said report in this House and in the Senate. What this scheme amounts to in broad outline is that we are going to assemble a number of sensible people, give them a sum of money and they will then determine what need there is for legal aid and decide how they are going to utilize this sum of money. Even at this early stage and in anticipation of such a request, I just want to say that if they were to come to me at the end of the first year and tell me that they required legal aid for the cases I have just mentioned, i.e. for the skolly who loafs about, snatches handbags and steals people’s money, I would say no to that. That will not happen. That is not legal aid, but “subsidizing crime” as has been said. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much more I can add. I think I have replied to everything raised by hon. members on this occasion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause in the Bill before us firstly terminates the existing right of appeal in respect of two specific categories of prohibited immigrants. As we are all aware, the right of appeal to the Immigration Board exists in all cases at the present moment. The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, pointed out that these two particular categories of prohibited immigrants had really no grounds of appeal at all, in that the category of prohibited immigrant covered by section 24 of the Act describes such a person as an immigrant who enters the Republic without the proper documents. One can understand that in his case an appeal is purely a formality that can achieve no beneficial result. The second class which comes under the 1937 Act, deals with the case of an alien who overstays the time limit of a temporary residence permit. Again I must agree with the hon. the Minister that an appeal by a person who does not have the documentary authority to remain in the Republic is a matter of no concern, but is possibly only a delaying tactic. We then come to the extraordinary addition in this clause in which the hon. the Minister also wants this power of appeal removed in the case of prohibited persons in terms of any other law. I raised this matter during the Second Reading and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister really expects this Committee to take him seriously in the explanation he gave. I suggested to him that it is a blanket provision that he was putting into this clause, and I would like to remind the Committee of what the hon. the Minister said in reply. He said that—

Mr. Chairman, for the hon. the Minister to ask us to put into an Act at this stage a deprivation of rights of appeal of persons whom he cannot even define is, I think, asking this House to accept too much. I am reminded that recently in this House, the hon. the Minister, when dealing with a matter regarding certain commodities that should be exhibited, was asked why he was legislating for one more type of beer than actually existed, said that a new one might come on the market. That was when he was dealing with another matter, however. Here the hon. the Minister, when he is taking away the rights of an individual to appeal, wants us to pass a generalized power, because Parliament might create another type of prohibited immigrant at some future stage. I cannot be strong enough in saying this to the hon. the Minister. He is a man who has practiced the legal profession. To put a clause of this sort into an Act, is not only bad thinking, but I want to suggest that it would be folly for the Committee to accept a provision of this sort.

Who is the prohibited immigrant we are now barring? The hon. the Minister himself has not made a case to us and to this House as to why all prohibited immigrants should be excluded from appeals. All he has said, and all he has put before us during the Second Reading, was that there were two particular types whose appeals would never succeed because their prohibition was settled on documents. But, Sir, does he know of the other types of prohibited immigrants that have been created? This hon. Minister himself refuses a passport to a South African citizen. This person then leaves the country and he does so on some other passport, for which he qualifies. Because of the whim of the hon. the Minister in refusing a passport to that citizen, that citizen becomes a prohibited immigrant. Is he never to have an appeal? Are his rights of appeal to be taken away from him because of an administrative action by the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Chairman. I believe that this type of provision is unwise and it is asking this Committee to approve of legislation which is unclear to the Committee. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to get up this evening and enumerate to us under what laws a person can become a prohibited immigrant. If he can enumerate them. I say to the hon. the Minister that it should be put in the Bill before us. He should then specify in the clause what types of prohibited immigrant he is dealing with.

Is that what you want me to do?

Yes. The hon. the Minister makes it quite clear that he is asking us to give him carte blanche.

You yourself know what happens when the types are specified.

The hon. the Minister is now asking us to give him a carte blanche and he does not want to tell this Committee what type of prohibited immigrant he wants to deprive of the right of appeal. Why does the hon. the Minister not do it? It is a very simple matter if a new type of prohibited immigrant is created in the future as the hon. the Minister suggests, to amend the Act by including that particular category. For these reasons I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. member for Green Point I think the key words here is “prohibited person”—and whether it is a prohibited immigrant in terms of the Aliens Act or any other law—is the key word “prohibited”. If any other law should therefore make a person a prohibited immigrant he would not have the right he is here being denied. This is a blanket clause and I can already think of one other Act which is not mentioned in this particular clause in which there is created a prohibited immigrant, namely section 8 of Act 23 of 1964, which creates a special type of prohibited immigrant. All this clause is trying to do is to disallow prohibited immigrants. I want to remind the hon. member for Green Point that the words “prohibited immigrant” in the definition of prohibited immigrant is always subject to review by any court of law so that if there is any argument about that, the question of whether a person is a prohibited immigrant in terms of a certain law or not can be taken on review. That is where the person has his right.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat strengthens my argument, because the hon. the Minister in introducing this measure—and I want to remind the hon. member who has just resumed his seat of this fact—asked for this right of appeal to be removed, not because the persons affected were prohibited immigrants, but because the appeals were merely, as he said, “’n gemors van tyd”. In other words, this type of prohibited immigrant, the man who has come into the country without the proper documents, can have no appeal. It is factual. He has entered the country without documents.

The second point to which he referred, and which we accept, is in regard to the person who is in the Republic on a temporary residence permit, and overstays the time allowed by the permit. Here again we accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation and his reason for this, namely that it is quite reasonable that such people should not have the right of appeal. But the hon. the Minister did not at one stage in his speech or in his reply say that he wanted to remove the right of appeal from prohibited immigrants. If that is what he intended, this clause would not read as it does now. The clause would merely refer to a person who is a prohibited person in terms of any law. But here the Minister specifically refers to section 24, and he specifically refers to Act 1 of 1937. And then the hon. the Minister tells us quite frankly that he just wanted an umbrella in case somebody else was made a prohibited immigrant in the future. This he said in his reply. But the hon. the Minister’s Hansard is there as evidence against him. According to his Hansard there was no question of wanting this power of appeal removed from all prohibited immigrants. I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment I am sure that he will accept that it is good legislation not to have this type of umbrella clause, but to deal with a specific type of person.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot accept that amendment. I think the hon. member will, in actual fact, agree with me that I cannot accept the amendment. I cannot understand how the hon. member could have deduced that I was supposed to have said that this provision was not applicable to prohibited immigrants. That is what is laid down in the clause.

I did not say that. When the Minister sits down I shall explain what I said.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for me to say that this clause refers to prohibited persons. This is what is being stated in the clause itself. I fully agree with the hon. member for Prinshof that the key words here are “prohibited persons”. In the provision dealing with prohibited persons, we referred to section 24 as well as to the 1937 Act. But as I have specifically stated in my reply to the Second Reading debate, it may happen that there might be persons who will be prohibited persons in terms of some other statutory provisions. I still stand by that. The hon. member for Prinshof was quite correct again when he said that such a statutory provision was section 6 of the Departure from the Union Regulations Act, 1955, as substituted by section 8 of Act 23 of 1964. This is a specific example of another statutory provision in terms of which somebody may be a prohibited person. This statutory provision is nothing new in our laws. We find it in several laws because it is not only applicable to statutes, but because it is also intended to be applicable to regulations. The reason for this is the fact that statutory provisions include regulations as well. Although I cannot tell you right now of any more cases where specific provisions defining prohibited persons are to be found, there may possibly be some other statutory provisions defining prohibited persons. As I specifically stated in my reply to the Second Reading debate, the intention here was to deprive prohibited persons of the right of appeal, no matter under which statutory provision it is done. This is what we want and as a result of that, I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised by the reply which the hon. the Minister has given. I know that a long time has elapsed since he delivered his Second Reading speech on this matter, but may I refresh his memory, Sir? He first of all referred to the case of the immigrant who came into the country without the proper documents. He said (Hansard, 17th February): "… hulle maak gebruik van die drie dae grasie by appèl om binne te kom en dan te verdwyn … In die lig van die omstandighede soos verduidelik, het ek dus die vrymoedigheid om in klousule 1 aan te beveel dat hierdie skuiwergat toegestop word.” That is not a prohibited immigrant as such, but a type of prohibited immigrant who comes in without documents. Then he went on, and his only other justification for this clause was as follows (Hansard): “Ek glo nie dat … enige twyfel sal ontstaan dat dit nie die bedoeling was dat iemand onder hierdie omstandighede ’n reg van appèl moet hê nie as hy sy reg van binnekoms of verblyf kan bewys deur die voorlegging van slegs die betrokke dokumente.” In other words, Sir, he was not talking about prohibited immigrants in general. That is my point. The words “prohibited immigrant” are used, but a specific type of prohibited immigrant is referred to, namely the one who is prohibited under section 24, or the one who is prohibited under Act 1 of 1937. That was the only case the hon. the Minister made to us. It was only in reply to a question which I asked him during the Second Reading that he made this statement that he wanted to make assurance doubly sure, and that there might perhaps be a new type of prohibited immigrant he has not thought about, and which we might come across in the future. That is not what the hon. the Minister said this evening. In trying to justify what was said by the hon. member for Prinshof, he now says that he wants to prevent all prohibited immigrants from having an appeal. If that was his intention, he should have said so, but that is not what is stated in the Bill. This is an addition. I believe that the Minister is making a grave error in not deleting these words in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather baffled at the argument advanced by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. the Minister gave an example of a prohibited person, and because the Minister had given an example of a prohibited person from one of the Acts during the Second Reading, the hon. member for Green Point now says that this was the only person the Minister had in mind and that this was the only person who would not have the right of appeal. But this is really no argument. If the hon. the Minister does not give any examples in future and merely refers to all prohibited persons, the hon. member for Green Point will be satisfied. Surely, when a person gives an example, it cannot serve as an argument to say all of a sudden that the entire provision is confined to that example. I must just say that it surprised me that the hon. member for Green Point advanced that argument.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—67: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Van den Berg, M. J.; 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 Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—25: Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, de V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wiley, I. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and A. H. Hopewell.

Question accordingly Affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to subsection (c). In subsection (c) a new subsection (4A) is inserted. It reads as follows—

The problem which arises here is the position of the South African citizen who loses his South African Citizenship for reasons which are virtually placed beyond his control. That arises in the case of persons who apply to the hon. the Minister for leave to use the passport of another country if they wish to visit a country in which South African passports are not valid. If the Minister in his glorious isolation decides not to give that permission and a South African citizen uses another passport for the purpose of that travel, he is deprived of his South African citizenship. He loses his South African citizenship and on his return to the country of his birth he is to be treated as an alien and must fulfil all the conditions and requirements applicable to an alien. There are all sorts of cases of persons wishing to leave the country as South Africans, for example to take up study bursaries in other countries. The administrative act of one person, i.e. the hon. the Minister, can place these people in the position either to decline the bursary or to lose their citizenship, i.e. by taking out, as result of the action of the Minister, an exit permit on a permanent basis. They then lose their South African citizenship and if this subsection is adopted, and this student wants to return to South Africa he has to fulfil all the obligations which must be fulfilled by an alien. There are other cases of persons wanting to leave the country, on an emigration basis. Because of the administrative decision of one person they may be obliged to leave South Africa on permanent exit documents. If they are disillusioned abroad and wish to return, they must return as aliens. The hon. the Minister might say that these are provisions which have been enacted by this House and persons under those circumstances should lose their citizenship. What I am concerned about is that apart from losing their citizenship these additional penalties are obstacles which are placed in the way of those persons who want to return—all because of the administrative act of one person, i.e. the Minister of the Interior. There is no right of appeal against the Minister’s refusal to grant a passport. I do feel that there is no justification for these people being placed in this position. We have had instances in the history of our country where people have left the Republic of South Africa because of political differences with the Government of the day. They left but we welcomed them back to South Africa in the fullness of time and they became good citizens. Under this clause, persons who have left South Africa because of differences with the Government of the day, who have left for political reasons, are barred from ever returning as South African citizens. They must go through all the procedures of an alien. The hon. Minister’s predecessor indicated that last year, in 1967, no less than 530 applications were made by South African citizens to use foreign passports. The Minister in his glorious isolation approved of 492 of them and by doing that he has indicated that there are really good justification for using a passport of another country. The 38 people who were refused were persons who wanted to visit countries where South African passports are not accepted. If those people had carried on and have gone on those trips they would have been penalized under this particular section which is now being introduced. I can see no justification for this provision. I have listened and I have read again the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. I believe that this is a harsh power which he is asking, and for this House to enact a harsh penalty is detrimental to the good interests of South Africa. It is also detrimental when we think how much we would like to have many of these people return to South Africa, to take up their lives here in the interests of South Africa and its future. For these reasons I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, i.e.—

The hon. member for Green Point made the basic statement and levelled the reproach at the hon. the Minister that under this clause the position could arise that people could lose their citizenship for reasons beyond their control. Then the hon. member gave two examples. The first example he gave, Mr. Chairman, was that of a person who leaves South Africa in spite of the fact that he has been refused a permit. Because he also has a foreign passport, he then travels abroad with a passport that is not a South African passport. Then the hon. member for Green Point says that that person loses his citizenship for reasons beyond his control! The example the hon. member gave us there is a typical example of a person who wilfully, contrary to the wishes of South Africa, visits the outside world. He applied for and was refused a permit, but in spite of that he leaves South Africa and goes travelling in the outside world. Can such a person then expect to regain his citizenship where he has deliberately forsworn it? The other case that was mentioned by the hon. member is the one where a person decides to leave the country on a one-way permit. You will recall, Sir, that these are usually persons who have been restricted. Such a person then has the choice, if he wants to go abroad, to go on a one-way permit. He accepts this, leaves South Africa, and if he wants to return the hon. member states that that person has lost his citizenship as a result of something beyond his control. But that is not so. This clause simply means the following. A person who wilfully leaves South Africa with the object of forswearing it as his father-land, forswears it, and if he returns he must apply anew for his citizenship, because he has lost it. This is all that this clause provides and from that point of view it is a perfectly good clause.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot for one moment agree with the argument of the hon. member for Prinshof, even if he is an advocate. The hon. member dealt simply with the question of people who make use of the passport of another country, and, with great respect to the hon. member, that is not the only category of person who is dealt with in this clause. It deals with South African citizens who have applied to the hon. the Minister for travel documents and are refused by the Minister without any reason being given, and are then forced to leave the country if they want to go, for whatever reason, on exit permits. If they endorse them to the effect that they are going for good, they then become prohibited immigrants, and if they want to return then, under this clause, they become aliens.

They are not forced to leave the country.

The Minister forces them to leave by administrative action. Let us make it clear that where any South African citizen is refused a passport by this Minister or any other holder of that office, on the grounds that the Minister has information that that person has committed some offence or has a criminal record or is guilty of subversive activities, or something of that kind, no-one particularly wants that type of person back in South Africa. Should such a person attempt to return, we agree he should be treated as an alien and should reapply, and that he should suffer all the disadvantages which go with that status. But unfortunately the experience over the last few years in South Africa has been entirely different.

The Minister’s predecessor, and I do not know to what extent the Minister has done so himself, has taken administrative action—I would go further and call it punitive action—against a good many ordinary South African citizens whose bona fides, under normal circumstances, are not in doubt where the issue of travel documents is concerned. Once the Minister has refused to issue a passport then, as everybody knows, there is no further appeal, there is no reason given, it is a kind of face less power which the Minister has. I would say this power has been and is still undoubtedly being used as a means of getting rid of some of the Government’s political opponents, as the hon. member for Green Point has correctly stated, and I challenge the Minister to say that is not the case. This weapon has been used, as the hon. member for Green Point said, particularly against ministers of religion and against students of one kind or another who wish to take up scholarships and bursaries. May I point out to the Minister that he forces these people, by his own administrative action, to a point where, if they wish to leave South Africa at all, they only have one course open to them, and that is to ask to leave the country on an exit permit. They have been put in an invidious position by this Minister, and once they take up the exit permit then, if they wish to return, they become aliens in terms of this new clause under discussion.

My point is simply this. The Minister, having used administrative action in this way, in the first place to get those people out of the country, has used a subtle and very unpleasant form of intimidation, because, even if they were South African citizens before leaving on an exit permit, a permit which they are obliged to take out, or else give up the bursary or scholarship offered and stay here, having left on a permit they return under a cloud. If they decide to stay and in the result give up their bursary or grant there is no doubt whatsover that they remain here under some kind of suspicion, under some kind of cloud also because it is generally known by a certain number of people that they have been refused travel documents. There is a blanket of silence and no reasons given. Several categories of people come to mind other than those already mentioned. The Minister must know there have for instance been leading members of our Bantu, our Coloured and our Asiatic communities, who have been offered a course of study at a university or some other educational institution overseas, many of them involving postgraduate study. Many of them have been offered this type of study in the U.S.A. or the U.K. What happens in such cases? We are quite familiar with it. They are refused documents by the Minister, who makes his assessment of the situation as to whether they shall or shall not attend those educational institutions entirely on his own. He makes that assessment on the basis of what he considers to be the desirability of that Bantu or that Coloured or that Asiatic going to a particular educational institution. In other words, he judges whether that institution is going to be good for the person concerned. On his assessment of the value or otherwise of what the institution is going to do for the person, he then decides—and it is a purely ideological judgment—that it is not good for a certain student to go to a certain college, wherever it may be, because a Bantu, for instance may pick up ideas which the Minister does not want our Bantu people to pick up overseas, and so he is told he cannot go. The Minister’s judgment is a purely arbitrary, subjective judgment.

You are talking nonsense; mention a few cases.

I am not talking nonsense, this has happened in a number of cases. The people concerned then either have to leave on exit permits, although born here, if they are to continue their studies, or if they wish to widen their experience and their field of employment and so on, or they have to remain here because the Minister is not going to let them go. If they do leave on exit permits then, in terms of the clause, the moment they return they become aliens in the land of their birth.

With great respect, the Minister’s judgment is not infallible. His judgment in these instances is purely subjective. With a wave of his hand he can hamper the career and curtail the liberties of a person. His predecessor in fact often did that. A person’s citizenship is arbitrarily removed in cases of this kind when he leaves on an exit permit. All this is done under a blanket of official silence on the part of the Minister.

Let me give hon. members one example of the cases I have just stated to the Minister. Let us take the case of Dr. Van der Ross, who is a doctor of Philosophy and a very well-known member of the Coloured community in South Africa. He applied to the Minister’s predecessor for travel documents to take up a post as lecturer at the Roma University in Lesotho. The Minister’s predecessor, for reasons best known to himself, refused to give him travel documents to take up that post so Dr. Van der Ross had to remain in South Africa. What happened later? Dr. Van der Ross subsequently accepted a post under this Government in the Department of Coloured Affairs, and, because the Government approved of what he was going to do and where he was going to go, what he was going to see and whom he was going to meet, not only was he recently given travel documents but he was sent overseas by the department to go and study all sorts of educational matters. This is a perfect example.

The Minister knows as well as I do that highly qualified Coloured people, teachers, workers and professional people, have been refused passports over and over again, I submit in an attempt by this Government to keep them here in order that they will assist the Coloured community in their general development, rather than allow them to leave the country. I consider that to be a direct and arbitrary curtailment of the liberty of any citizen of any country. As the Minister knows, they are almost always asked to leave large financial deposits before leaving the country.

I have dealt with a great many cases, but I want to refer to one case in particular. A week or two ago a certain family came to me for assistance as they wished to leave the country. The Minister may recognize the case from the facts; I do not know whether he will or not. In September of last year the husband and wife and their two children applied to emigrate to Australia. They were asked to deposit the large sum of R900. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as regards this clause and the discussion that has taken place, I should like to appeal to hon. members on that side to place a somewhat greater value on South African citizenship than they do. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the opposite side must not complain if they are hit hard now. If one listens to their speeches, one finds that they boil down to this, that they do not really attach great value to South African citizenship. The case that was referred to a moment ago is a striking example. Dr. Van der Ross set more value on his South African citizenship than on a better position in Lesotho, and consequently he retained his citizenship and is still a good citizen of South Africa to-day.

Why was he refused a passport?

That is another matter: the matter was considered at the time, and the hon. member himself has said that the reasons for the refusal of a passport are not made known.

You admit now a mistake was made at the time?

No, Sir, the hon. member should rather ask Dr. Van der Ross; then he will probably find out that it was no mistake. I say we must set more value on South African citizenship, we must not make it cheap. If we make all these concessions, and if we make it so easy for people first to try out the whole world and then to decide where they want to live and work, if we make it possible for them to return to South Africa at all times, then we are indeed making our citizenship cheap. There are several cases we could refer to. The hon. member for Green Point did that. In the first place I want to point out that where a person wants to travel on a foreign passport, we warn him twice that if he does use it, he would be running the risk of losing his South African citizenship. I am sure hon. members on the opposite side will agree with me that if one is a South African citizen, it is, except in highly exceptional cases, one’s primary duty to travel on a South African and not on a foreign passport.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.