Mr. Speaker, I move—

Arising out of the debate so far, there have been certain aspects which I believe still call for some clarification. I wish to put certain points before the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister listed 28 paramedical services which, according to him had already come on to a voluntary register in terms of the Act, as it existed before the amendments were introduced. The hon. the Minister indicated that these 28 bodies, who had voluntarily agreed to register, could form professional boards, if they so wished. The hon. the Minister also said that, in so far as homeopaths were concerned, it was not the intention of the Medical Council to register them as a professional board. He said that he believed that section 34 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, which deals with the practising as a medical practitioner when unregistered, was something which could be applied if necessary. However, he said—and I agree with him—that it was not suggested that the homeopaths as such would contravene this particular section. For the record, I would like to refer to the question of homeopaths in so far as section 37 of the same Act is concerned. I believe that the situation could arise that homeopaths might find themselves in conflict with section 37 in so far as the provision of medicines is concerned.

Then, I find that I am still not clear as to the Minister’s attitude concerning naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists. I am not including among herbalists the nyangas. The hon. the Minister made the position quite clear regarding the nyangas. It seems as if the Minister has implied that the people I have mentioned will be allowed to go free in the sense that they will be able to continue their activities, but are not likely to be placed under any form of control. I believe that in the interests of the public, it would be well to consider placing the particular people who fall into the groups mentioned, under some form of control.

Then, Sir, I wish to refer to comments made by the hon. the Minister in his reply to me during the Second Reading. I believe that the hon. the Minister construed my remarks in a manner in which they were not intended. Firstly, I want to emphasize that, in the particular discussion which took place, I emphasized my remarks by saying “in this particular instance”. I have always felt free to criticize a statutory body when I was of the opinion that grounds for criticism existed. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, on two occasions, I have criticized the South African Pharmacy Board. It was strong criticism, which is on record, but I directed my criticism at the South African Pharmacy Board, the establishment as a whole and not at the individual members, whom I have always held and still hold in high esteem. I want to say that it was not and is not my intention to impugn the integrity of the members of the Medical Council. My remarks were intended for the establishment, and not the members. I trust that these comments will put the matter in full perspective.

May I say in conclusion that we on this side of the House, apart from certain exceptions, welcome the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Berea has just indicated, we on this side of the House do welcome the passage of this Bill, as has been pointed out during the other stages of this debate. This Bill is an important milestone in the medical history of our country in that it enables the various para-medical services to be placed on a proper footing within the fold of the Medical Council and within the fold of the Act, which is under discussion in this Bill. This, I may add, is a course which these para-medical services desire to achieve. It is therefore something which has their support.

Mr. Speaker, my object in rising is to briefly once again refer to the position of the chiropractors.

Order! Chiropractors are not included in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. the Minister conceded the contention which we have made all along that the terms of this Bill are such that they could be affected. This was conceded by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading reply. It was reiterated when clause 7 of this Bill was discussed yesterday in Committee. Clause 7 introduces the new section 39A.

At this stage of the debate we can assess the position. One of the most important facts that has emerged from this debate is the fact that the hon. the Minister conceded the contention which was made by this side of the House, namely that this Bill could affect chiropractors and that in fact they could be curbed and prevented from continuing to practise under the provisions of this Bill, particularly the provisions which are to be introduced by clauses 2 and 7. I do not wish to elaborate on this. We have made our position towards chiropractors clear at the various stages of this debate. We believe that they have through the years provided to the public of South Africa a valuable service and that in the main their service has been to the great benefit of many South Africans who, in some of these cases had not been able to benefit from the services of normal medical doctors. We therefore would be opposed to any form of curbing of the present practice of chiropractors in this country. We also believe that provision should be made for them to continue in practice as a profession. I do not wish to elaborate on that in view of the fact that it is proposed to introduce a Bill to deal with them. We can discuss that matter under that particular Bill.

What I do wish to add, though, is that there is another side to this, namely the rights of the public. They have in the past been entitled to consult chiropractors if they wished to do so. We on this side of the House believe that they are entitled to continue to consult chiropractors should they wish to do so. If in fact the Minister’s contention is that there are some chiropractors who either abuse their positions or who are a danger to the public, then this is a matter which can be dealt with in any event. However, it is not a ground for preventing from practice the large body of chiropractors who have performed a valuable service and it is not a ground for preventing members of the public having the free choice of consulting these people if they wish to. We do not propose to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill because of the fact that the Bill goes so far as to enable chiropractors to be curbed. We do this, because of the assurances of the hon. the Minister that it is not his intention, despite the fact that the provisions of this Bill are wide, to curb chiropractors under this Bill. We do wish to draw to the Minister’s attention our concern and we would also, with respect to the Medical Council, suggest that they themselves ought to be very careful not to tamper with the practice of chiropractors under this Bill. If this is done, they will be tampering with the rights of not only the chiropractors, but also with the rights of every individual South African who has been …

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this Bill deals with all the categories of para-medical services. It does not deal with chiropractors alone. It also deals with the homeopaths, the osteopaths and the whole spectrum of para-medical services. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was only dealing with those categories.

Order! I listened to what the hon. member was saying. He was going too far. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in fact I have completed what I wished to say. There is nothing left for me to add other than to say that the provisions of this Bill generally are sound. Therefore, we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal very briefly with the few points which were raised. In the first place the hon. member who has just sat down has expressed the opinion that the Medical Council should not tamper with the rights, not only of chiropractors, but also of the public. What I want to say to the hon. member is that neither this Bill nor in its whole existence has the Medical Council ever tampered with rights. Their sole function is, and they have executed that function in a very grand manner, on behalf of the public, to control and lay down certain standards in connection with medicine and its para-medical services. Secondly, the hon. member referred to the rights of the public where it concerns treatment which they might wish to undergo. I would just like to refer the hon. member to what has been said by the Commission on this point in its report. I quote—

Some of the herbalists diagnose.

Their position remains the same, because they are liable to punishment in terms of section 34. Section 34 has always been applicable and is not being amended with reference to them. Section 34 is only being amended with reference to cancer quacks. As far as this is concerned, the position therefore remains exactly the same.

The hon. member for Berea also gave an explanation here of what he said during the Second Reading debate. I may just tell the hon. member that I do not accept his explanation at all. The hon. member did not voice criticism, but threw suspicion on members of the Medical Council by saying that their financial interests would influence them in their decisions in this connection. With regard to this matter, I want to say two things. As far as chiropractors are concerned, the question of financial considerations has never been relevant. Neither has the question of competition been relevant. The position today is that there is an enormous shortage of doctors. Consequently competition cannot be a factor, even if it could, indeed, have been one in other cases.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for amendments to the Rents Act which we on this side deemed necessary and wanted incorporated in the Act and for that reason we have supported the previous stages of this Bill. We will also, of course support the Third Reading of this Bill this afternoon.

During the course of the debates on this Bill we have had the opportunity to hear from the hon. the Minister and from other hon. members the effects these amendments will have on the administration of the Rents Act and on its efficacy as a control measure. The hon. the Minister has indicated himself that he believes that further consideration will have to be given to various aspects of the Bill. In so far as this Bill and the amendments which it now introduces in the Act endeavours to keep the delicate balance between the interests of the lessor and the lessee we appreciate and welcome the steps which are being taken. The law has to maintain this delicate balance. The owners of dwellings and flats are always complaining that their returns are insufficient and on the other hand lessees always complain that the rents are too high and that the profit margin for owners is too big. It is for that reason that we welcome the steps that have been taken and the promised further action which the hon. the Minister has indicated. One realizes that if one is to encourage the building of residential accommodation no owner or entrepreneur must be made to feel that he is subsidizing accommodation for the public. At the same time one realizes the necessity of protecting the tenants in terms of the law must continue while the demand for residential accommodation exceeds the availability of residential accommodation. The hon. the Minister had suggested during the course of the discussions on this Bill that he was contemplating the possibility of removing control from certain, what he called, luxury accommodation. I realize that is a matter which flows from some of the amendments which are contained in this Bill, but I wonder whether that is really the correct line of thinking for the hon. the Minister to adopt. Is the real problem not that the persons in the middle and lower income group, who should be able to obtain accommodation in the lower rental priced flats, are not in fact obtaining that accommodation? They are not in fact obtaining that accommodation, because it is the higher income group who occupy very many of these rent controlled flats. I am sure that if the Minister were to remove rent control from certain, what he terms, luxury blocks, it is not going to have the effect of winkling this walthier group out of the controlled flats which they occupy at present, to go and occupy more expensive flats. I mention these matters merely because I do hope that the Minister will continue with what he has said during the course of this debate and that he will give further consideration to the effect of some of these amendments. We should like to know, where it comes to the question of amending or trying to prescribe a method of determination of a reasonable rental, whether he can find some means whereby there will be uniformity as regard the boards throughout the country in determining a value for premises for the subsequent determination of the percentages of six per cent and eight per cent. The approaches of the boards vary considerably and there is cause for complaint amongst the owners in different parts of the country and amongst the tenants.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little in what the hon. member said with which I differ. There is of course the difficulty that one deals with different rent boards and different people who have a different approach to this whole question of rent control. Some members of the Rent Board think that their only job is to protect the tenant. Others think their only business is to protect the landlord and to see that he gets a good return on his money. Last year I called together all the full-time rent boards and the Rent Control Board to try and get them to arrive at a uniform formula according to which they can realize that their job is on the one side to protect the tenant and see that he is not exploited and on the other side to see that these people get a reasonable return on the money which they invested in flats. The conference lasted the whole day. What success we had, is very difficult to determine. There are still complaints that, as a result of the working of the Rent Act, people do not want to invest in blocks of flats.

I want to give this idea to the hon. member for Green Point for his consideration. With the Sectional Titles Bill being passed this year, we will enter a new phase as regards the whole question of supplying flats to the population of this country. As I told the hon. member for Musgrave, I am considering, and I think I am going ahead with it, the possibility of asking the rent boards to give me a list of luxury flats which I can take out from rent control. I agree with the hon. member. You find that there are people living in those flats who are in the higher income group. In fact, most of them are in the higher income group. I think that is going to be of great assistance.

What I would suggest now is let us see how this idea of taking these luxury flats out from rent control as well as the Sectional Titles Bill, are going to work and how they are going to affect the investment of money in blocks of flats. By the end of the year we ought to have more clarity as to the effect of these two measures that we are now contemplating. If we find that they do not work, I must say that I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member for Musgrave, namely that we appoint a commission to go into this whole question. It is a very complicated matter indeed. On the one hand, you want to protect the people and on the other hand you want the people to invest money in blocks of flats. I think this is the best we can do at least for the next 12 months.

Can you give us an indication when the Sectional Titles Bill will be introduced?

I am not introducing that Bill; the Minister of Justice is. I understand, however, that it will be introduced this Session.

Within a fortnight, more or less.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Since the provision of water for agricultural purposes is under discussion here, there is one aspect of the matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister or his department, i.e. that we shall have to conduct research which will enable us to place bore-holes more accurately. I suppose the hon. the Minister and his department are aware of the large number of dry boreholes which have in recent times been sunk in the Southern Cane alone. Because of the fact that a terrible drought prevailed, the farmers were obliged to convey water for their stock over long distances, for if one has a stock farm without water, one may just as well call that farm Ichabod. Owing to the major drought we had recently, many farmers resorted to sinking bore-holes. I do not know how many of those bore-holes were successful. I do not have the figure at my disposal, but I would be astonished if it amounted to more than between 15 and 20 per cent. This is the position because in most cases there is no method for indicating where the drilling has the best chance of success. We must bear in mind that these bore-holes involve tremendous costs and that the department itself subsidizes 90 per cent of them. If the holes are a few hundred feet deep, an account runs up very quickly after that. Dry bore-holes do not only bring about a loss for the department, but after a while the farmer’s farm looks like a sieve. We are now establishing a Water Research Commission here, and we are also going to involve our universities in this matter.

Yesterday we heard from the hon. member for Fauresmith that research into subterranean sources was already being done by the University of the Orange Free State. In view of all the methods of research which exist, I wonder whether we cannot devise a recipe whereby it will be possible for us to locate water with greater accuracy. We know that there are people with X-ray eyes. I cannot say much about them and I do not know to what extent they are successful. Whether it will in due course be possible for the gift which such people have to be pinned down scientifically for practical use, I do not know. At present water is in most cases still being divined by means of the ordinary divining-rod. A great deal is being said about these divining-rods and a great deal of fun is poked at them. But the water on my farm was located by that and nothing else, and I have never had a shortage of water. Then there is the story of an old man who, one afternoon, wanted to divine water by means of his divining-rod, a rod that was made of copper wire. This rod immediately started reacting long before he reached the spot where the farmer wanted to find water. After a while he remembered that he had been to town earlier that day and that he had bought a new pocket-knife, which he had in the pocket of this waist-coat. He took it out of his pocket and after that his dowsing-rod worked satisfactorily again. Many similar jokes are being told in this regard. But I have witnessed this method of divining water with my own eyes, and I cannot believe that we may simply push these people aside.

I have also seen these people placing an ordinary bottle on their hand, after which that bottle toppled over in the direction of a subterranean watercourse. The direction in which it topples over, is the direction in which water should be sought. Whether this has any scientific significance, the scientists will know much better than I do. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as though we have many hon. members here who are knowledgeable about this matter. They would be well advised to take their knowledge to the department, which needs it very much. Then we have the geologist and his apparatus, and we believe that when it comes to subterranean watercourses being located scientifically, the geologist is really the man for the job. But the geologist is not interested in locating water other than in large basins and quantities. What this amounts to, is that drilling has to be undertaken down to a depth of between 2,000 and 3,000 feet, and that is out of the question for the ordinary farmer. This would be useful for irrigation purposes, but not for stock-watering purposes.

Nevertheless, I want us to give thorough consideration to this matter along these lines. In this respect the university concerned may carry out additional research for us, and by doing so they may render an invaluable service not only to the department, but also to the ordinary agriculturist, if they can devise a method whereby water can be located with greater accuracy.

The hon. member is concerned about whether the necessary research is going to be undertaken in connection with the presence of subterranean water. If the hon. member reads the relevant provision once again, he will see that it is one of the functions of the commission to undertake research in respect of the occurrence of subterranean water. The intention is also that research will be undertaken in connection with water for agricultural purposes. It is, of course, not as though research has not yet been undertaken in South Africa along these lines. Over the years the Geological Survey Division has been undertaking research in this regard, although perhaps to a lesser extent. However, valuable research has been undertaken; furthermore, both the C.S.I.R. and the department itself have been making contributions in this regard. The hydrological division of the department has been occupying itself with this matter for a long time.

Furthermore, a great deal of information has been collected. In referring to research, we must not forget that, as far as the subterranean water situation is concerned, there should be co-ordination and additional concentration on research by all bodies and persons concerned with the matter. I may also tell the hon. member that a committee of scientists was appointed two years ago already, a committee occupying itself with this very matter, not so much to undertake research, but to determine the guide-lines for research. Now, with the advent of an institute established at a university, an institute which is going to concentrate its attention on this matter in a much more specific manner, I think that we shall be in a much better position in the future to do justice to research. The hon. member need not be afraid that justice will not be done to it. The Department of Water Affairs cannot carry on with its task, especially as far as the subterranean water situation is concerned, if it does not undertake much more research in this sphere. We simply need it because there are certain parts of our country where there is no water and where it is difficult to supply water from other points. Therefore, we must undertake the necessary determination of water resources in order that we may tap local resources in accordance with their capacities.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Yesterday I said I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister a problem in connection with this clause. Clause 4 (2) provides that a member of the commission shall hold office for such period and subject to such conditions as the State President may determine at the time of his appointment. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that this way of making an appointment not only is an unusual one but also creates no confidence amongst the public, as there is no assurance of permanency. The State President may appoint some members for one year, some for two years and some for three years, just as he likes, and he may terminate their period of office whenever he wants to. Normally the practice is to terminate an appointment only when there is good reason to do so. The public would like to have confidence in the commission, and we should prefer to see the period of office being stated; members being appointed for two or three years, or any other period of office which the Minister may deem fit, in accordance with the practice followed in the appointment of members of statutory boards. I should like to inquire whether the hon. the Minister would consider moving the necessary amendment in the Other Place.

The hon. member raised this matter yesterday afternoon as well, and I deliberately waited for the Committee Stage to react to it. Sir, what the hon. member is now asking is what we first had in mind. When we drafted this legislation the idea was to make provision for a period of three or five years, but the clause was drafted in this way after many bodies and persons had been consulted. I want to tell the hon. member why we are of this opinion now. Here we are dealing with scientists. This commission is unlike a statutory board to which one appoints people for three or five years. We feel that it is somewhat risky to link a member’s appointment to a specific period, particularly if it is a short period. We should prefer to see a somewhat larger measure of flexibility and we should prefer to advise the State President to appoint members for a longer period, because we should like to have continuity in research. We envisage that it would be better to retain the services of a person over a longer rather than a shorter period. Therefore, if we are erring in this regard, we are erring in the right direction, and now the hon. member knows why we have included this provision as it stands. We feel that when one is dealing with research, the position is somewhat different to what it is when one is dealing with ordinary boards in respect of which one would rather decide every three or five years, for safety’s sake, whether or not to retain a person. Another reason why this decision was taken is this: As yet we are not able to see the exact way ahead; perhaps we shall even have to come back later with amending legislation, because the hon. member will notice that we are appointing six members only. We first want to feel our way ahead. In the field of research various possibilities can arise, and in that case we should like to have some flexibility. When new directions present themselves, we should like to have this measure of flexibility to reconstitute the commission, if necessary. For this reason we prefer to start with the Bill in its present form. We prefer to tie the scientists to long periods of office, in which regard we shall reach agreement with them at the time of their appointment. This was the main consideration in this regard. When we started I was of the same opinion as the hon. member and after very thorough consideration we decided to draft the clause in this form.

Sir, in the Bill we are making provision for co-opted members if the State President does not appoint a sufficient number of members. As it is, these people would not have been appointed on a full-time basis and it would create confidence amongst the public if the public knew who was to be appointed and for what period of office. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. The persons who will be appointed must be the best experts we have at our disposal. Whether the State President appoints members for two or three or five years, the fact remains that they will retire in rotation and in that case they may be reappointed or other members may be appointed in their stead. We should like to have confidence in the commission; we want to know who will be appointed and for what period they will be appointed. I make special reference to this as this way of appointing members will create confidence amongst the public whereas this loose way in which members will be appointed by the State President will not create confidence amongst the public. Unless one consults the Government Gazette, one will not even know for what period a scientist has been appointed as a member. We should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that we on this side of the House are of the opinion that it would be a good thing if he were to reconsider this and possibly amend this provision in the Other Place so as to introduce a greater measure of permanency and so as to phrase this provision in more definite terms.

I shall reconsider the matter, and perhaps I shall have the opportunity of discussing it again with the hon. member in person. However, I shall reconsider the matter and see what we can do about it. But I want to tell the hon. member that in the light of what I now know, I feel that this is the right thing but I am not bound to that. I shall take note of the proposal of the hon. member and give it more thought before this Bill is dealt with in the Other Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

I move the amendments printed in my name, as follows—

The point I want to raise is in regard to this word “secretary” when moneys are paid over in terms of this clause to the secretary. I think there is no doubt that the intention is that the moneys should be paid over to the Secretary for Water Affairs, who is chairman of the Research Commission. It is one of the principles in this Bill which we favour that the Secretary for Water Affairs shall be chairman of the commission. In another later clause I will come back to the same point. But as the matter stands here now, where amounts are collected from irrigation boards, etc., and paid over to the secretary, the word “secretary” is defined in the original Act and it means the gentleman who is the Secretary for Water Affairs today, but where it reads like this it seems to have a connotation tying it to the secretary of the body that has produced the money. I merely put that to the Minister. I am not trying to move an amendment or to suggest that there is in fact any legal difficulty there. It is merely for clarity. I do not even particularly want an answer from the Minister at the present time, but the Minister’s amendment here, which helps us in regard to another matter, does not deal with clause 11 (3). line 34, where there is also reference to these moneys being paid over to the secretary. It seems as if it may have to be paid over to the secretary of the irrigation board which has collected the money. I do not think it means anything of the kind, but means that it should be paid over to the Secretary for Water Affairs, in other words, to the chairman of this commission, but it is perhaps a pity that it does not put it that way, and that is all I am suggesting.

Actually the Water Act gives clarity on the meaning of the word “secretary”.

Yes, the Water Act defines the word “secretary”, and the Secretary for Water Affairs is the chairman of this commission, so what this clause says is that the moneys collected in terms of this subsection shall be paid to the Secretary for Water Affairs. My point is that it would be better if it said that the money should be paid to the chairman of this commission because he has two capacities. He is the Secretary for Water Affairs in terms of the Water Act, but this is not an amendment to the Water Act; this is another Act altogether dealing with a totally different matter, and in this particular Act that same gentleman is the chairman of this commission, and we like that. So that when you use the definition in the Water Act and say the money should be paid to the secretary instead of saying it should be paid to the chairman of the commission, it looks as if there may be another person who is called the “secretary” somewhere or other. If that is so, he is not defined and the tendency would be to think that it means the secretary of the irrigation board or the water board concerned. I merely mention it in passing.

I shall discuss this matter again with our legal advisers. The Bill was submitted to our legal section and they came forward with the clause as it is. I would not want to argue on a legal point, but I can see the hon. member’s point and, if necessary, we will amend this clause in the Other Place.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

This is the other clause I referred to just now. I referred to subsection (7) of this clause. This Bill does not make what are very often standard provisions for the secretariat of a body, as has been set up here. There is no allusion to a secretariat here. We assume, because of the powers, the functions and, more particularly, the duties that are conferred upon the commission, that it is implicit in the fact that it is a body corporate that it shall have power to deal with the questions of staff, and so on, although it is only provided here by implication. That brings us to the particular clause we are dealing with, which says:

But there is no secretary to the commission, Sir. I come back to the same point. Does this not mean that the Chairman shall cause proper books to be kept? If it means the Secretary for the Department of Water Affairs, then it is in his capacity as an official in another statute and not associated with this particular Bill at all, although his duties, functions and powers are laid down here. It is a statutory body. It is a fact that there is no provision for a secretariat. One assumes, therefore, that the chairman of this commission, who is the Secretary for Water Affairs in his other embodiment, will probably use his Department of Water Affairs to find the personnel to form the secretariat for this body. There is apparently no other provision for it. In other words, the chairman of this body, as Secretary of Water Affairs, will say to officials in the Department of Water Affairs, that he wants them to keep the books, draw up the estimates and make the returns and all the things which are provided for in this Bill. Again, I am not quarrelling with it. When the hon. the Minister tells us that he has to deal with the law advisers, I can only say to him that he has our sympathy. I can say no more than that. Perhaps he can find, somewhere or other, language clear enough to make it plain that the person referred to here is the chairman of the commission who has to carry out these duties. When he is called the secretary, it looks as though they are imposing an obligation on an official who is only associated with another department in terms of another statute entirely.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to clause 13 (6), which reads as follows—

With reference to this I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this pertinent question: Why was the word “shall” not used instead of the word “may”? We are dealing here with a statutory body which may levy rates, which has the power to accumulate money. Although the moneys are subject to the audit of the Controller and Auditor-General, I nevertheless think that it should be provided that unexpended moneys should not only be held in reserve funds by the commission. We should like to know what happens to those moneys. I think it must be provided that the moneys shall be invested in the sources mentioned in the Bill. For that reason I want to propose that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to substituting the word “shall” for the word “may”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, wanted to know whether we could not use the word “shall”, but circumstances may crop up in respect of which it may be inconvenient to invest those moneys in research, for instance through the advance purchases of apparatus, etc. The commission, will, of course, be tied down if it is provided in the Act that the moneys are to be spent in a certain manner. If we provide that such moneys are to be spent in a particular manner, the commission does at least have the latitude to undertake another form of investment as well.

In that case, surely, provision to that effect can be made?

No, it cuts both ways. I do not think that we should tie down the commission by saying that if there are any unexpended moneys, they should be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners at such and such a time. The commission will most probably be able to invest those money in another manner. Hon. member can appreciate that one does not wish to tie down by regulation moneys of this nature in a certain manner. Some latitude must be allowed. This matter is in the hands of the accounting officer of the commission, i.e. the Secretary for Water Affairs. To my mind too little free play would be allowed if it were provided in the legislation that the unexpended moneys shall be invested, and the word “may” is the better word in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is being provided in the legislation that the moneys may be invested in any other manner as may be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Consequently the Department of Water Affairs or the hon. the Minister may, if they deem fit, provide that unexpended moneys may be invested in a manner other than with the Public Debt Commissioners. But here we are working with the money of the public, and it is desirable for the commission to to be obliged to invest those moneys in such a manner as shall be determined by the Minister. As long as the word “may” is used in that provision, the commission can do with those moneys just as it pleases. They can even transfer those moneys to a reserve fund, which they may create. That is not the way in which the tax-payers’ money should be dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Minister does this in consultation with the Minister of Finance, makes all the difference. If the Minister had money and could dispose of it as he pleased, I think he ought to be tied down. But if he does so in consultation with the Minister of Finance, it is reasonably safe to retain the word “may” instead of inserting the word “shall”. That was the feeling when the legal draftsmen were consulted about this matter. That was also the feeling at the Treasury.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was dealing with clause 4 of this Bill and the question of the compensation to be paid to persons who may be adversely affected by the removal from the mine of subterranean water. Perhaps the hon. the Minister, when he replies, will deal with the practical method which is to be devised, because we do not expect the hon. the Minister to set himself up as an arbitration court to work out, in his individual capacity, what has to be paid. We realize that there can be very large sums of money involved. In fact, vast sums may have to be paid as compensation. The precise form which will be followed in calculating that sum of money which will be the award of the hon. the Minister is of importance to us. Then I come to the next clause and that is clause 5. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us any special reasons which actuated him in inserting this clause in this Bill. We realize that usually water is supplied by the Minister’s department probably for a 12-month period and that this is obviously intended to make provision for a short-term supply of water under such conditions and terms as the Minister may decide. One of those conditions I assume is the question of the disposal of waste water, or how the water shall be used, the disposal of the effluent which may flow from its use, etc. Those are matters of grave importance today.

In regard to clause 6 and in regard to certain changes to the existing law which have been made by various clauses in this Bill, I want to say that we agree entirely with the amendment which has been proposed by the Minister and whereby he is given power to act after consultation with the Land Tenure Board and not on the recommendation of the board.

Clause 8 is an innovation and we here will watch this with a good deal of interest. At the present time schedules under the department are registered in the Deeds Office. This is a very valuable right and that is reflected in the fact that it is registered in the Deeds Office on one’s title. This appears to mean that the department itself will constitute, as it were, a central registry for the purpose of registering all scheduled land rights throughout the whole of the Republic. This is a departure from the old system. We realize that in practice it may prove a workable scheme and that it may perhaps prove to be a scheme which is going to alleviate some of the difficulties which we have at the present time at the various Deeds Offices. We shall watch it with a good deal of interest to see how it works out.

In regard to clause 12, perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us whether this in fact derogates from a lot of the work which is being done by the Select Committee on Water Affairs at the present time. It seems to me as though that might be the case at the present time. We have numbers of instances which appear before us and these cases are for a reduction of fees which have accumulated over a period of years. These are recommendations to this House that the fees should not be paid for a period. In other words, it means that the irrigator is given an opportunity to get over drought periods. Generally we on the Committee make recommendations to the House in connection with the financial affairs of these bodies, the Water Board, and so forth. We get them continually. It does seem to me that clause 12 may be putting in the hands of the Minister the authority to do those things which in the past have been the subject of consideration and recommendation by a Select Committee. I am not altogether unhappy about this by any means, but I might say in passing that I am much more unhappy about many of the cases which appear before us in the Select Committee, because a good deal of cleaning up can be necessary there. That is not really before us this afternoon, and therefore I am not going to transgress and go into that particular area of our parliamentary work. If in fact these matters to which I have referred are now being put into the hands of the Minister, and will not form the subject of reference to the Select Committee, perhaps the Minister will tell us so. I think that brings me to the end of the points with which I wanted to deal in regard to this Bill.

As I have already said, we are supporting the Bill, now and in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that this amending Bill is not applicable to South-West Africa. There are certain matters mentioned in this Bill that also affect the mining industry in South-West Africa. I should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister to what extent clause 4 can be made applicable to the territory’s economy in so far as it relates to the functions of both the Department of Water Affairs and the mining industry in South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, various points were raised by hon. members who have already spoken. Yesterday the hon. member for South Coast referred to clause 2. Clause 2 deals with a problem that is being experienced lately, i.e. that bodies well-endowed with capital purchase large tracts of land alongside uncontrolled rivers. When a public river or stream is declared to be controlled no work such as a dam may be erected in it, nor may water be abstracted from it in any way whatsoever. Water can only be abstracted after a specific regulation, and such a regulation is issued by the Department by way of a permit. This then gives a person the right to abstract a certain quantity of water at a fixed maximum rate. The Department therefore has control over certain of South Africa’s rivers. However, it is technically and physically impossible to declare every stream and river from the Limpopo to the Cape as being controlled, and to sort out these rights. There are a large number of rivers that will have their turn when the present declared streams have been dealt with and all the rights have been allocated. The Department can then take it upon itself to place the remaining portion of South Africa’s large streams under control; already, however, bodies who are well endowed with capital are simply climbing in and purchasing and developing land on a large scale, not caring what the vested rights of others are. For this reason we must put a stop to it. The Department is therefore now setting a limit on the amount of water that can be stored. A dam that can hold more than 100 morgen feet of water may no longer be built, nor may a stream of more than four cusecs be abstracted, whether a stream is controlled or not. Yesterday the hon. member asked whether it is not necessary for the Department to keep records of these works.

For those works that are already completed before this measure comes into operation.

I feel very much like telling the hon. member that it would be very handy to have something like that. However, the administrative work which the hon. member’s suggestion would entail, seen in the light of all the other work they have, is such that I should like to keep the department free of it. I believe that when the department has completed certain of its big tasks, we ought to have such a record in the future. I simply do not think that this is the time to ask us to try it. At the moment the department is absolutely overburdened with other work that is specifically related to this. However, the hon. member must know that his remarks have not fallen on barren ground. He will also know that we must choose a suitable time to place such an additional burden on the shoulders of the department.

The hon. member also had a problem in connection with the abstraction of water in dolomite areas. This specific clause refers to that. What are we doing? In this clause we are giving the State, and particularly the Department of Water Affairs, the right in such cases to make provisions on how the Minister of Water Affairs will protect the person whose interests are prejudiced when an extensive mining development comes along and such a mining development is going to have its side effects in the sense that the abstraction of water in order to make mining possible will mean the drying up of other fountains on which farmers made a living. There is no mention of what the amount must be. The Minister does not want this either. I do not want to take the responsibility of saying what the amount must be at which people must be compensated. I just want the right, when such an opportunity presents itself, of getting both parties together, the mining interests as well as the agricultural interests. In the meantime I am trying to lay this down in an Act and then to lay down a provision, about which the Minister will decide, on how agreement should be reached. We may possibly even go so far as to warn the mining interests that they may not abstract a drop of water until such time as they have, according to a fixed formula, reached an agreement with the people who will be adversely affected. The Minister is therefore not assuming the right to make a provision in respect of the payment and compensation for rights that are prejudiced. But the Minister does assume the right to make a provision to the effect that there must be a formula according to which both parties can reach agreement. That is all he is doing. Now he cannot do anything. However, with this clause on the Statute Book he can make such a provision and then try to protect the agricultural interests. It is his intention to do so.

The hon. member also made a remark in respect of clause 8. This is in connection with the Deeds Office. Sir, you can understand that if there are tens of thousands of water rights on the various farms in South Africa and, as we develop, more and more agricultural units are created with which certain abstraction rights are bound up, all those abstraction rights and the permits issued to people are on record somewhere or other. That record is in the hands of the Department of Water Affairs. But as things stand at present all those records must be duplicated and transferred to the Deeds Office. This is, of course, an enormous task; but because a person’s rights are laid down in law, and because these rights are also recorded in the Department’s records, the department feels that it is unnecessary for these rights to also be duplicated and transferred to the Deeds Office. It is just an enormous task that is loaded off on to the Deeds Office. They are quite satisfied that according to the Act there is sufficient protection in the records of the Department, and that it is consequently not necessary to have virtually a duplicated record and twofold protection. For that reason we are quite satisfied that we are helping the Deeds Office with their problem. We are satisfied in coming to Parliament and saying that these two parties, the Department of Water Affairs and the Deeds Office, have reached an agreement to the effect that the records of the Department of Water Affairs are sufficient to protect a man’s rights. That is why we are coming to Parliament to ask that that office be relieved in this big task. I want to give the hon. member the assurance—I think it is on his mind—that there is sufficient protection for the rights of people if these records are not duplicated in the Deeds Office, but are, in fact, kept with the Department of Water Affairs.

Could the hon. the Minister give any special reasons for clause 5?

I can understand why, on looking at clause 5, the hon. member cannot see the point of it. Perhaps the hon. member thinks that it is unnecessary to place this provision on the Statute Book.

No, we agree that it is necessary. What I want to know is whether there are special reasons which prompted this.

We have this clause to enable us to have the necessary control where other departments and other bodies need water. There is nothing else involved —it is just a case of making it easier for the Department.

Did you have any difficulties with other departments and is that the reason why you are bringing this forward? Let me say that we have no objection to this. All I want to know is whether on occasion you have had difficulties with other departments.

That is not the point. There are many bodies, local authorities and others, in respect of whom a dispute can develop about the Department’s obligation to supply water. All we are doing here is to place the administration of the Department above all doubt. Consequently there need be no doubt about that.

The hon. member also referred to clause 12, which deals with the replacement of capital works. What happens is that where there is a capital work such as pipelines —and here I am referring to Phalaborwa —with a life of say 30 years, this means that a loan negotiated for such a work also lapses after the termination of the life of the work. However, what has happened in the meantime? The body to which the work belongs has had to pay it off during the 30 years and at the same time build up a reserve that will be large enough to replace the work at the end of the said period. Now we feel that it is only fair that no such obligation shall rest on the authorities—for example the Phalaborwa Water Board—to pay off the work and at the same time build up a reserve that will be large enough to replace that work at the end of the period. The principle we are introducing here is that the present generation, who are enjoying the benefits of the work, must pay for the work and that those people who are there after 30 years must pay for the replacement. At present, people who are there after 30 years begin with a work that has already been paid for; the present generation has paid for it. I think that the way in which we are now regulating it here is a more reasonable one.

The hon. member for Etosha referred to South-West Africa and asked whether the provision in connection with the obligation that rests on mines to pay compensation, for water they abstract, to those people who are affected, will also be applicable to South-West Africa. Yes, it will be applicable to South-West Africa. I can only think of one point in South-West Africa where it will perhaps be necessary to do so, and that is in the north. It will be applicable there.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, my department and I would like to emphasize that this is an honest and sincere effort to place the administration of Bantu affairs in White areas on a sounder and more efficient basis.

With the establishment of Union, Bantu administration was vested in the Union Government. Bantu persons had, however, collected in the areas of local authorities and the control over local authorities was in turn vested in the Provincial Administrations.

If one considers the development of Bantu administration in South Africa over the years, one finds that the phases of development, dictated by the circumstances and demands of each particular era, were such that a pattern emerged in which various authorities were from time to time vested with powers, with consequent overlapping, and the well-nigh impossible situation today that various bodies exercise control within the same statutory area or district, over, for instance, the introduction and distribution of Bantu labour.

So, for example, local authorities administer local labour bureaux in prescribed areas (areas with an urban character) for the purpose of controlling the employment of Bantu. Thus we have the municipalities, the Divisional Councils in the Cape, the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas in the Transvaal and the Local Health Commission in Natal. In some cases more than one of these bodies operate in the same district.

In addition, other bodies are in control of Bantu labour matters in non-prescribed areas (areas with a rural character). So, for instance, a Bantu Affairs Commissioner administers a district labour bureau in his area of jurisdiction to control the employment of Bantu persons in the non-prescribed area, but he is also responsible, as far as agricultural labour is concerned, for the application of the law relating to the occupation of land belonging to Whites by Bantu persons in the non-prescribed areas (farms in this case) and their employment (squatters, labour tenants and full-time workers), and this he does inter alia, through labour tenants control boards and labour control boards. These control bodies in turn operate on a regional basis within the areas of Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioners.

For the man in the street there is also a confusing variety of investigating officials —local authorities have authorized officers and the office of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner has Inspectors of Bantu Labour, some of whom are known as mines liaison officers-cum-urban areas commissioners. In addition, there are labour liaison officers, provided for by section 38(quat) of Chapter IV of Act No. 18 of 1936, of whom some are known as “squatter inspectors” and others as “farm inspectors”.

All these authorities are concerned with the organizing, supply and control of labour. Procedures are long and cumbersome and irritate people.

You bet it does!

An unsympathetic official could seriously embarrass the department and confuse the public, and this Bill should therefore be seen as a genuine attempt to achieve an efficient administrative system which will in the main have to meet three requirements, namely—

1. (a) to provide greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish more effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu Affairs over a much larger area; and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, and on the basis of knowledge of Bantu affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

For these reasons the Administration Board will be comprised of experts, representatives of agriculture, of commerce and industry, of local authorities falling within the administration area of such Bantu Affairs Administration Board, and also of persons in the full-time employ of the State. The normal and tried administrative procedure of consultation with the bodies concerned will be followed in the appointment of members representing agriculture, commerce and industry.

As you will notice from clause 2 of the Bill, Bantu Affairs Administration areas will be declared by the Minister after consultation with the local authorities which may be affected. The administrative procedure which has been agreed upon after consultation, to which reference is made later on, will be that a committee comprising representatives of local authorities affected, representatives of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs and of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and one representative each of the Institute of Town Clerks and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, will investigate and report in order to assist the Minister to determine appropriate and effective areas and boundaries.

That is not stated here.

No, but I am telling you now. I am busy explaining the legislation. [Interjections.]

It is clear therefore that the establishment of Bantu Affairs Administration areas for Bantu Affairs Administration Boards will be a gradual and well-considered process, which will have to be dealt with efficiently and judiciously, and for this reason this Bill is an enabling measure. Where a Bantu Affairs Administration Board is not established, the status quo will be maintained as though this Bill had not been passed.

Just as in the case of any other local authority, the meetings of an administration board will be open to the public and Press, but it will also have the right to go into committee.

Because it was realized only too well that this Bill would be introducing a new phase in regard to the administration of Bantu in White areas and that, in the process, people would be affected, extensive consultation took place with bodies and authorities that would be affected by the provisions of the Bill. I am happy to state that wide support for the Bill has been experienced and that points and clauses which might have given rise to misunderstanding or concern, have been eliminated, particularly in the case of those bodies who took the trouble to consult with me in good time or to furnish me with their comments.

Lengthy discussions were held particularly with the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs and the United Municipal Executive. Their contributions have been invaluable. The Bill in its present form is, in fact, to a large extent the product of discussions and co-operation over a period of two years, for which I would like to record my sincere thanks. The executive of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, which, as the specialist body, can be said to be the most intimately concerned, supports the Bill as a whole, and to my knowledge all the problems raised by the United Municipal Executive in regard to the Bill have been resolved, and although some members do not agree with the principle involved they have nonetheless co-operated, for which I also express my sincere gratitude and appreciation. From my side the comments received from various bodies were carefully considered in order to retain the equilibrium between effective administration and the expressions of concern, respective interests of employers and employees, the respective interests of local authorities involved and a board, and generally to ensure that all concerned are justly and fairly treated.

Accordingly, many consultations and much time were devoted to the staff of any future Bantu Affairs Administration Board, the people on whose shoulders will rest the important task of doing the job.

As already indicated in the explanatory memorandum provision is made in clause 10 of this Bill for the existing staff attached to the Bantu administration of a local authority whose area of jurisdiction is included in the Bantu affairs administration area of a board, to be temporarily transferred to the service of such board with a view to permanent appointment. Such temporary transfer will be for a maximum period of six months. A board can however, also appoint other persons in its service. Existing staff of local authorities who transfer to the service of a board will have the choice of retaining membership of their existing pension funds or transferring to the board’s pension fund. For pension purposes a board will be deemed to be an associated institution under the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act (No. 41 of 1963). Other persons accepting permanent appointment with a board must become members of this pension fund.

I want to make it clear that staff temporarily transferred from a local authority to the service of a board will not be compelled to accept appointments with a board, but it will be obligatory on a board to offer them appointments which shall not be less favourable than their present positions. Should they accept positions in the service of a board they will not forfeit any accumulated sick or vacation leave or membership of the particular trade unions to which they may belong.

In respect of persons temporarily transferred to a board’s service, there are mainly three alternatives—

1. (a) they may join the service of a board;
2. (b) they may return to the service of a local authority, which will deal with them in accordance with their conditions of service, remuneration and pension privileges; or
3. (c) if, after consultation with the local authority concerned, the Minister is of the opinion that a person is unreasonable in refusing to accept either a position in the board’s service or an alternative position with his local authority—and here I want to repeat that in terms of the provisions of clause 10 (6) a person shall not be worse off in the position offered to him—such person shall be deemed to have resigned.

If a local authority incurs expenditure arising from the refusal of an official to accept a position with a board which it would not have incurred if this Bill had not been passed, the board will refund to the local authority the amount involved. In practice such refund will obviously be preceded by negotiations between the two bodies within the spirit and provisions of the Bill.

It is clear, therefore, that the object here is to offer to every person involved a fair and reasonable opportunity to exercise hispreference as far as his job is concerned, and that no one need be worse off.

†The objects and general powers of a board are set out in clauses 11 to 13 of the Bill. The board will take over from the local authorities in its area the rights, powers functions, duties and obligations in regard to Bantu affairs administration of such local authorities and will therefore be vested with normal powers of such statutory bodies in regard to land ownership, assets and liabilities. It will administer the same laws as those presently administered by local authorities in their prescribed areas; and these laws are not being amended. A board will also be vested with certain powers in non-prescribed areas within their areas of jurisdiction.

In this regard I would like to explain the terms “prescribed area” and “non-prescribed area”, with special reference to the labour and administrative set-up.

For purposes of the administration of Bantu affairs in White areas, a clear distinction is drawn between urban and rural areas by means of grouping into prescribed and non-prescribed areas. The concept of prescribed and non-prescribed areas is accordingly peculiar to the Urban Areas Act and the Bantu Labour Act. With minor variations, the prescribed areas coincide with municipal areas with the appropriate municipality as the ruling authority, whilst the non-prescribed area comprises the remainder of the area of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner, generally that portion of the area situated outside the municipal boundaries, with the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, and therefore the State, as the ruling authority.

In the main, the administration of Bantu affairs in the areas of local authorities, is concerned with housing, recreation and quasi-judicial and labour matters, which are also matters dealt with by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. Precisely because of these circumstances, the classification of the administration of prescribed and non-prescribed areas under different controlling authorities, has become artificial. This artificial grouping of administration has caused much dissatisfaction over the years on the part of the Bantu as well as on the part of employers. In the field of labour this factor stands in the way of maximum utilization of Bantu labour, because under present-day conditions the mobility of employers demands a similar mobility on the part of the Bantu workers.

Representations have been received from various sources over the last number of years, for a review of the existing arrangements and for larger administration areas which should preferably include areas of similar geographical nature and also, where possible, both the town and the surrounding rural areas of the particular district. An inter-departmental committee investigated this matter and submitted recommendations along these lines.

Such larger administrative units can introduce flexibility into the administration, can contribute to greater mobility of labour and can eliminate points of friction in the existing administration.

To obviate any misunderstanding, I want to put it clearly that an administration area established to include say four or more prescribed areas as well as non-prescribed areas will not ipso jure become a prescribed area in respect of its whole area. In point of fact every existing prescribed area included in a board’s administration area, will continue in terms of section 11(4) as a separate prescribed area in such larger region, but as a board may establish one or more local labour bureaux, according to its requirements, it will be possible for a Bantu who is eligible to work in one prescribed area within a board’s area, other than is the case at present, to take up work without following cumbrous procedures, and also ipso jure in any other prescribed area within the region of the board.

That is a sensible point, for a change.

I am a sensible man and my department is even more sensible.

A board will also be able to perform in regard to urban Bantu certain functions which are presently performed by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. The extent of such functions will be laid down by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette. In regard to non-prescribed areas, the board will also be able to exercise certain duties and functions presently exercised by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner under Chapter IV of Act No. 18 of 1936.

The funds of a board are mainly the moneys presently in the Bantu Revenue accounts of local authorities and the sources of revenue remain unchanged. These sources are mainly rentals from housing schemes, trading premises and site rentals;Bantu beer and liquor profits; Bantu services levy, donations, interest on investments, etc. The manner in which these funds can and will be applied, remains unaltered and the fear on the part of some bodies that section 13 (7), which provides that a board may donate money to the South African Bantu Trust, is designed to obtain large sums from the Bantu Services Levy, is completely without foundation. The Bantu Services Levy will continue to be used for the same purposes and in accordance with the same procedures as in the past.

I am aware that large employers accept the bona fides of the hon. the Minister and myself in regard to this matter and this is a source of great comfort to us, but I prefer to confirm my bona fides by proposing in the Committee Stage that section 13 (7) be so amended as to make it clear that the provision in this sub-section will be subject to the terms of section 11 (1) (e), that is, subject to the laws mentioned there. It can be mentioned here that it is customary for local authorities to make donations to the South African Bantu Trust and already various local authorities have donated almost as much as R1 million in one single year. The clause therefore merely confirms an existing situation.

It is emphasized that boards are expected to be financially independent so that Treasury will not have to be approached for funds. The financial aspects have been thoroughly investigated and it is clear that existing provisions in this Bill are sufficient for administration boards to perform their functions adequately without recourse to the State for additional assistance.

It is self-evident that local authorities should not be permitted to withhold unreasonably from a board, facilities such as water, electricity, sewerage reticulation and stormwater drains, etc., and for this reason appropriate provision has been made in the Bill. These measures are essential as, by virtue of the objectives of such a board, it has to take over urban Bantu residential areas, take over liabilities, maintain the areas, establish additional areas if necessary, and administer these areas. All existing regulations, permits, authorities, etc., continue unchanged and remain in force in terms of clause 21.

Existing regulations are deemed to have been issued by the Minister. Boards will not be able to make regulations. This function vests in the Minister and he promulgates regulations after consultation with a board. (See section 22 (5)).

In connection with the regulations which it is proposed to promulgate, I want to state that provision will be made, amongst others, for procedures at meetings of a board, such as the keeping of minutes, etc., and for the attendance of all meetings by alternate members for reasons of continuity, but without right to take part in the debate or to vote on any matter.

In respect of inspectors of a board the regulations will also provide for proof of identity, which will have to be produced on demand.

Provision is also being made in the Bill for the transfer to a board, when such action is considered necessary, of the assets, powers, and functions of a management board established under section 40bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act, No. 25 of 1945 (for example the Sebokeng Board), or of the Bantu Resettlement Board established by Act No. 19 of 1954.

A matter which initially caused concern in some circles is the residential rights of Bantu in prescribed areas. I believe the present wording of clause 26 with which the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, and others, are in complete agreement, puts the issue beyond doubt. A Bantu does not lose his residential qualifications where he now enjoys them and if he obtains a new qualification in another prescribed area, he enjoys the same protection in regard to the newly earned qualification. He will not be able, however, to have two “qualifications” at the same time in respect of two prescribed areas. I do hope that this clause will be entirely acceptable to all concerned.

*Mr. Speaker, my Department and I plead that this measure, which is intended to achieve increased efficiently, to streamline the administration of Bantu affairs and to introduce greater mobility of labour in White areas, and which is the result of intensive study, and in respect of which extensive consultation with many bodies took place in regard to all its details and implications, will receive general support here, as it does outside, and that the discussion of it will be fruitful and constructive. This is a new approach with a new Act and system, and it may be that practice will demand amendments in which case Parliament will be approached without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in introducing this measure, set out what the objects were. The objects as set out by him in his speech, were in fact also set out in the explanatory memorandum which we have received. In the first place, as the hon. the Minister again said today, it is for the more efficient Administration of Bantu Affairs, secondly for greater mobility of Bantu labour and thirdly to be able to make better use of the talents of the officials at their disposal.

Now, Sir, as far as the administration of Bantu Administration is concerned, we agree that it is lacking in many aspects. We feel, too, that it is lacking because of the multitudinous laws which this Government has introduced and which affect the Bantu in the urban areas and which make it so difficult for the municipalities to administer them properly. That there is a desire for greater mobility of Bantu labour, no one can deny. The greater mobility of Bantu labour has become an urgent need. We have debated the shortage of manpower on several occasions during the last few weeks. We have stressed the need for the better utilization of Bantu labour. On that score the Minister will find this side of the House more than sympathetic when considering this measure. However, in regard to the way in which better Bantu administration is to be achieved, we differ. It is not disputed, as I said just now, that the administration is inefficient in certain aspects. Our view is that it is because of the interference by the State in the administration of local authorities. If they are failing, it has not been the fault of the local administrations, who in the main are to be congratulated for what they have been able to do towards the humane implementation of the harsh regulations and directives of this Government. Municipalities are only the agents of this Government. The managers of Bantu municipal affairs have to be licensed by this Government. Their livelihood, therefore, depends on the appreciation of the necessity of carrying out the instructions and wishes of this Government. There is ample provision in our existing legislation for control of the administration by the Government, and the Government does in fact exercise control. Why it must now take over completely I do not know. It is not as if it can sever all connections with the local authorities in the administration of Bantu affairs; oh no! There are provisions in this Bill which empower the Minister to compel local authorities to carry out certain functions, whether they want to or not. Why does the Minister want to take over to the extent that he now proposes in this Bill? It is obviously for political reasons. I say it is for political reasons: that it is the hon. the Minister’s policy to reduce all Bantu in the urban areas to migrants. He is not making sufficient headway with his policy. This fact is very clear. The year 1978 is looming closer and closer. By that year we are supposed to see the return of the Bantu from the urban areas to the Reserves. The Government’s trouble is that the municipalities and other local authorities are too humane in the application of laws. They make the Bantu townships too pleasant. They furnish amenities which are lacking in the Reserves. When the present Minister of Community Development was the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development he stressed this fact. He said that the urban areas should be made less attractive. In that way he hoped that the Bantu would return to the Reserves. It is also a well known fact that Soweto, which is controlled by the Johannesburg Municipality, is much more attractive than Meadowlands and Diepkloof which are administered by the Resettlement Board. The municipalities have had decades of experience in managing Bantu affairs. Councillors are elected because of their interest in municipal affairs in the areas in which they live. The well being and happiness of the Bantu must be and is their concern. It is naturally so, because the people who elect them are ratepayers and others living in the area who keep an eye on what the Council does. The members of the Council owe their position in the Council to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are responsible people and they have had experience in administering local affairs. I want to give another example of how municipalities cushion the harshness of Government legislation. In Johannesburg the City Council built its Bantu hostels a bit more comfortable than the specifications laid down by the Government. They also spent over R1 million on sub-economic housing which is not recognized by the Government. We also know that they have given extra money for bursaries beyond what is required by the Government. If we take all these facts into consideration we will see that municipalities, and especially the Municipality of Johannesburg, cushioned the harshness of Government legislation because they are sympathetic to the people who are living in their areas.

These boards will be more sympathetic.

I am pretty certain that these boards are not being formed because the hon. the Minister expects them to be more sympathetic, than the Johannesburg Municipality for example. What is the trouble the hon. the Minister and his department has with the Johannesburg Municipality?

They are not carrying out our policy.

They do not carry out the harshness of Nationalist policy, because they are more humane than the Government would like them to be in their administering of Bantu affairs. The Government wishes to take the administration of Bantu affairs out of their hands. The Government has the power to force them to carry out the law, but it knows the criticism which will arise if it does force municipalities to carry out these laws. This not only applies to the Johannesburg Municipality but to all the larger municipalities and in the main, to all local authorities. They go out of their way to cushion the effects of this Government’s legislation.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

What I am suggesting here, is a form of premium bond to be introduced as one of the methods by which the public can save money with the Government. I am authorized to say that the introduction of a system of premium bonds is part of the programme of action of the official Opposition. When the opportunity is given to us, and that can be soon, we shall introduce a system of premium bonds in South Africa. So, in principle I can say that all members on this side of the House who belong to the United Party support what I am suggesting. But the details are of course proposed by a private member exercising his privilege as a private member in this House to put forward his own ideas. I can only hope that the discussion of the principles and the details that I shall submit to the House will create an opportunity for us to exchange views, to discuss the motion objectively and without prejudice and, perhaps, to make progress in our thinking upon this interesting and important subject. What I am suggesting is that we should have in South Africa a system of interest-bearing premium saving bonds. The plan is modelled, with differences, on the one that has been operative in the United Kingdom since 1957. It could have been modelled on other plans, for example on the French plan. They have a system which I can describe as “terminal savings bonds”. The people invest their money at a certain rate of interest with the Government for a fixed period. The interest is then used to repay to a certain number of bondholders their capital, plus the interest in anticipation as it would be at the end of the period. They can then take the interest or they can re-invest the total sum.

But the system I suggest is somewhat different, similar to the system which is now operative in England. When I speak of the British example, I want to say that I have taken the pound as being worth R2. It makes it simpler to do the calculations and it makes it easier for us to understand as we go along. There the individual can buy premium savings bonds in units of R2. The maximum an individual can invest is R2,500. The interest payable on these bonds is at present 4⅝ per cent. The bonds can be issued only to individuals and not to corporations, trusts or partnerships. They are repayable on demand, but they have to remain with the State for three months before they become eligible for prizes. The interest is paid into a pool from which prizes are drawn monthly by a computer called Ernie, E.R.N.I.E. being the initials of electronic random number indicator equipment. It makes me suspect that they thought of “Ernie” before they thought of a name for the machine. The prizes are paid every month to every person who is still a bondholder, and they are paid to the estate of a bondholder for 12 months after he dies, after which they become repayable in any event.

It is interesting to note that this plan in the United Kingdom had been an outstanding success. The results today show that no fewer than 17 million people there own bonds under the system. By the end of May, 1970, which was the latest figure I could get, a net sum of R1,542 million remained invested in these bonds. More than 6 million people in the United Kingdom have drawn prizes under this scheme in about 13 years. I want to suggest that we follow a similar scheme in South Africa with similar rules, but that half the interest be paid directly to bondholders in the normal manner and that the other half only be put into a pool for the purpose of awarding bonuses to the public.

As this scheme develops and as the first draw should not take place before after three months, one could at the start issue prizes in units of R10,000. This means that it will be possible to have one prize of R1,000 every time there is R10,000 in the pool, two of R500, three of R100, 20 of R50 and 268 of R25. It should not take long for the fund to become substantial. If, for example, there is R10 million in the pool, there will be available R300,000 a year or R50,000 every two months. In that event it will be possible to make the units more substantial and to pay one prize of R20,000, one of R10,000, two of R1,000, four of R500, six of R100, 40 of R50 and 526 of R25. This will mean not only that prizes will be generous but also that there will be a large number available so that as many people as possible will benefit. If there is not enough money to complete a unit of R50,000 in any one month, one could have a smaller unit, say, of R10,000 while still smaller balances can be distributed in a larger number of small prizes, say of R25. In Britain, with a population of about four times that of South Africa, in 30 years they have saved R1,542 million through this scheme. If we assume that South Africa, with a population only a quarter of that of Britain, will save one-fifteenth of this amount it will mean that within a decade there will be something like R100 million accumulated under this scheme.

I want to suggest to the House that this idea of interest bearing premium saving bonds has great advantages, advantages which far outweigh any of the disadvantages which members may be able to find if they think very hard and stretch their imagination. In 1964, Mr. Moore, the then M.P. for Kensington, moved a private motion asking for the introduction of ordinary premium saving bonds. In the course of that debate several hon. members raised their objections. If hon. members want to appreciate the advantages of my suggestion today, they should look at the objections which were raised in 1964. These objections were: Firstly, it was wrong that people should invest their money while not earning any interest; secondly, that the award prizes by means of a ballot conducted by a computer was tantamount to gambling and that gambling was sinful; thirdly, that the bonds would compete with other more legitimate forms of saving—as in building societies and trust companies; fourthly, that a plan like that would not encourage thrift; and, fifthly, that a plan like that would encourage exaggerated thrift. These then were the five objections raised in 1964 against the scheme proposed by Mr. Moore.

Let us now look at these objections. The first one was that premium savings bonds carried no interest, an objection which had some merit because it did mean that a large number of people would be lending money to the Government without getting any return on that money whatsoever. But the scheme I propose today obviates and answers that objection completely. I shall come back to this in a moment. The second objection was that this would be a form of gambling. Sir, before we embark on a long discussion on the evils of gambling let us first define gambling. What do we mean by gambling? What are the evil aspects of gambling? I should say that the evil aspect of gambling is that people when they gamble put part of their possessions at risk in the hope of gaining more by mere chance; they run the risk of losing the possessions they have wagered.

Under the plan which I suggest the capital of the investor is not at risk; he can get it back at any time in full, and it earns interest while the State uses his money. Secondly, Sir, I want to point out that because he is paid interest he avoids the biggest gamble in which every saver in the modern world is compelled to indulge, and that gamble is that if you invest your money with the State or with a building society or with any institution, your capital will depreciate every year, some years at 5 per cent, some years at 2 per cent. And, Sir, you run the additional risk, which is a real gamble for the investor because he has no control over this, that the Government may devalue his money. There is no certainty about that at all, except that the more emphatic a Minister of Finance becomes in denying that he will devalue, the nearer devaluation is. Such devaluation brings great loss to the poor investor, especially those poorer people who are dependent upon the interest they earn for their livelihood. This plan, Sir, eliminates that risk entirely; for people will be credited with interest and will be paid interest.

Then the other objection is that the bonuses which people will be paid over and above the interest under this scheme will be determined by chance. Well, that is true, Sir. But is that necessarily an evil? Our fortunes are determined by chance in many aspects of our lives. Until recently, and I think today still to some extent, the question whether a young man would be trained to defend his country in the armed forces of South Africa was determined by ballot, by chance. I never heard any member of this House object to that on principle; I never heard the objection that it was gambling with the patriotism of our citizens. It is legal in South Africa—there are many instances of it—to have terminal bonds. There are building societies which run terminal saving schemes whereby people club together and save and a certain minority are paid out bonds which are large enough to enable them to buy homes while the others have to wait. This is determined by lot; it is done in South Africa. Our birth itself, Sir, is a gamble.

Some of us are born to rich parents and some are born to poor parents, and very often people who are born to poor parents are more deserving than those who are born to rich parents. I have not heard any suggestion from the opposite side that we should have punitive death duties in this country in order to equalize the risks and the chances that attach to the fortune of people. In any case the authorities conflict on whether the element of chance which enters into life is a sin at all.

When the Israelites came to the plains of Moab and were to be awarded their first land the Lord suggested to them that they determine the allocation of land by lot and it was done by lot. Jonah was chosen by ballot to do a job, and when he was reluctant to accept the fortune of the ballot he became destined to be swallowed by a whale. This is history, Sir; it cannot be argued against. Indeed, if we are to be men of principle, and women of principle, in this House, we could not send our children to school in South Africa, and we could not drive on the provincial roads in South Africa; because 3 per cent of the revenue of the provincial councils is derived from organized, legalized, controlled gambling. I have figures here showing what it is estimated the four provincial councils will get from the totalisator tax, from the betting tax, from the entrance-to-race-courses tax and from the bookmakers’ tax. These are the figures: The Transvaal estimates that by March, 1971, during the current year, they will derive R3,390,000 from gambling.

Now they want more money; they are going to make gambling easier by having legalized bucket shops all over the cities of the Transvaal, and these are the people who say: “We cannot encourage people to save through the medium of premium bonds because we would be encouraging gambling and sin.” In Natal the figure is R2,295,000, in the Cape Province R2,150,000, and in the modest Orange Free State R320,000, a total of over 8 million rand. Three per cent of the revenue of the provinces is derived from gambling and I have not heard any protest from any member; I have not heard of any member withholding his child from school or driving in the veld rather than on the roads.

Let us at least have some principle; let us be consistent if we want to be principled and not use arguments like this when it suits us and forget about them when it does not suit us. I would submit that the plan I submit today for interest-bearing premium saving bonds, has fewer evils than any of the things I have mentioned before. I do not believe that a member of this House can genuinely oppose the introduction of premium savings bonds and then be silent about the things I have mentioned. It would be utterly inconsistent and he would be revealing himself as an unprincipled man. And as I know that every member of this House is a man of principle I think a unanimous vote is called for at the end of this discussion.

That is wishful thinking.

Sir, I think you should call the hon. member to order, because he is suggesting that it is wishful thinking to regard members of this House as men of principle. That is a reflection on the House.

The third argument is that premium savings bonds will compete with other forms of saving for the savings of the public. But that is what the State does now on an extended scale. It affords itself an advantageous position in competing for savings, giving certain institutions advantages over other institutions. It calls upon people to save and to invest with the State, and then it exempts the investor from income tax. It gives similar privileges to building societies, but not to savings banks and to trust companies which also compete for the money of the people. This argument, Sir, is absolutely worthless. Competition is necessary; it is healthy. Saving is a good and healthy thing in spite of what people said in 1964, as I shall show in a minute. It is a necessary thing; it is good for the individual and it is important for the State and it is vital for the healthy economy of our country. Every motive that we can mobilize to encourage saving should be mobilized. Some people may save because they want something for their old age. Some people may want an income now. Others save merely because they have a cheap form of banking through the Post Office and the building societies. Others may save because they want interest and like to earn a bonus for their thrift and their public-spiritedness in lending their money to the State. Each one of these motives should be harnessed in the interests of our economy.

It was argued in 1964 that premium savings bonds would not encourage thrift. That argument I cannot understand. After all, we are taught from our childhood days that we should acquire the habit of thrift, of saving money, of being thrifty and careful, taking precautions against the vicissitudes of life, that thrift is a virtue based on good and sound habits. There are millions of people in South Africa who do not have the habit of thrift, and if as the result of introducing a system which gives them a bonus for their thrift, interest plus a bonus for their thrift, then surely we are encouraging a very healthy habit which will soon pass over into other forms of thrift; because the suggestion is that the bondholding by any particular individual citizen will be limited. In the case of the United Kingdom it is R2 500. We may decide that our limit here will be somewhat smaller, and once a saver reaches that limit he will have acquired the habit and he will be accustomed to putting money aside for purposes of thrift and he will then continue to invest in other forms of savings. We cannot do better for South Africa than that. Indeed, to prove how this encourages thrift, it is very interesting to look at the experience in the United Kingdom. Of all the forms of national saving in the United Kingdom, the most consistent and the most stable form of saving is the premium bond system. You see, Sir, people put money in savings bonds not because they want a cheap bank. The motive is actually to save and to earn a bonus for their thrift. Since November, 1956, when this system was introduced in England, R2,500 million was invested in premium bonds. In all those years only R901 million was withdrawn, leaving, as I have told you before, R1,542 million in these bonds.

It is interesting that in national saving, i.e. the savings of the small man, it happens again and again that in a particular year, especially when there are pressures such as inflation, more money is withdrawn from national savings than that which is invested. It happened in the year 1969-’70 in the United Kingdom when, as the result of inflationary pressure, I believe, R429 million were invested in national savings certificates but almost R200 million more, i.e. R608 million, were withdrawn. This has never happened since 1957 in the case of premium savings bonds. Every year people invest more than is withdrawn. It is a healthy and stable system of saving.

And finally, Sir, the most beautiful argument that I have heard against premium savings bonds. It is this argument that convinced me finally that I was right, moral and virtuous in proposing this motion today. This argument you will find in the English Hansard of 1964, column 977. The hon. member for Piketberg was speaking. He was hunting for every possible and impossible argument to justify his unreasoned opposition to the idea. This is what he said—

I should like to ask a purely rhetoric question. I do not expect an answer to it. Who agrees with that today? The hon. the Minister of Finance and everybody else plead with us to save in order to fight inflation. They say we have too much money chasing too few goods and too few services. They say: “Immobilize your money; give it to the State for safekeeping.”

Do you agree, Gert?

No, I want to put a question to Sonny Emdin.

Mr. Sonny Emdin is not taking part in this debate at the moment. The hon. member could ask me questions.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are adjured to do in the interests of South Africa. They all tell us to save. But the only sort of argument my friends opposite may find to oppose this plan is to say that it is unhealthy to save too much because you then immobilize the money of the people.

I think that for every reason that one can imagine there is a good and strong case and, I suggest, an unanswerable case to be made out for interest bearing premium savings bonds. It will bring income to the people who invest. It will eliminate the tendency to gamble on horses and in other ways, where people put their patrimony at stake. It will bring about healthy competition amongst various forms of saving for the surplus money of the people. It will encourage thrift and above all in the present time of inflation it will help us to diminish the amount of money bringing pressure to bear upon the services and goods which are so limited in South Africa today. At the same time, Sir, it will bring joy into many drab lives. It will bring a little bit of adventure into many boring lives. It will brighten life in South Africa.

It is obvious that the lighthearted way in which the hon. member for Yeoville presented to this House his motivation for his motion clearly proves that he is not really in earnest, in the first place, about promoting thrift but that the U.P. has motives other than those stated here. It is quite correct that hon. members on the opposite side are in favour of a State lottery. It is obvious that this motion, in essence, contains an element of the lottery idea. The hon. member admitted as much. I want to tell the hon. member that a rose by any other name smells just the same.

If we examine the motion of the hon. member, we see that there are in fact two definite elements which I think deserve consideration. The first is obviously the standpoint of principle. I do not think that members on this side of the House have any quarrel with any other member, nor with any member on that side of the House, about the fact that we in this country must stimulate thrift amongst our population, and that on the other hand we must obviously try to damp and combat the tendency to overspend. The hon. member gave us the figures of the system in America and England. He mentioned the amounts invested in the specific forms of saving, as he calls it. But he did not tell us whether it is the large investor who invests in this form of risky investment. For let us approach this from a scientific point of view. Nobody will, in view of existing rates today, invest money at the rate of 4 per cent, for it remains a fact that the prevailing rates are far higher. In other words, what must the incentive be for the investor to invest in this type of saving method? Obviously, the basic motivation cannot be the 4 per cent interest, which merely neutralizes capital depreciation. Obviously the motivation to invest in this form of saving must lie in the possibility of sharing in the prizes allocated by the pool.

What is wrong with that?

I shall come to that. I shall tell him what I think is basically wrong with it. I want to say that it is going to be the small investor who is going to invest his money in this way in the hope of making a fast profit.

I want to take an analytical look at the hon. member’s motion. His motion therefore includes the principle of saving, but it also includes a method of how this must take place. I want to tell him that on this side of the House a plea for greater saving would not be made by way of an exception, in the form of a private motion. This side of the House does not tell the people that they must not save because the Government is wasting their money. This side of the House presents scientifically motivated forms and ways of saving. It comes forward with standpoints of principal.

The answer remains the same, namely that the Government is wasting their money.

Please, the hon. member must not talk about money. I think he must realize that we are dealing with another matter, which is more important than this. It is true that, in the postwar world, a general tendency arose, particularly in the Western world, which led to greater spending, to over-spending and to actual wastage. I do not think that we can discuss the question of saving and the measures for doing so without referring to this specific set of circumstances which formed the basis of this spirit of wastage. But on what is it based? It is based on the political uncertainty and instability which arose; it is based on a defeatist attitude which we see in other forms as well, unfortunately in our own country too, of “let us live for today because tomorrow does not exist”. I am afraid that the method the hon. member is suggesting we should use to cause people to save, is in fact in accordance with a general spirit of little work and quickly rich. That is true. The hon. member for North Rand can laugh about it if he wants to. Hon. members on that side of the House are very inclined, in economic debates, to submit to us the standpoints as well as the conflicting standpoints of economists. Can hon. members on that side of the House mention one economist of any stature in South Africa who advocates this form of saving, apart from the hon. member for Yeoville? There is no doubt that the only motivation which exists for this form of saving is the element of earning money, not at calculated rates but by means of chance income by taking part in a lottery. The rate of interest can never be the main consideration. I shall return to that later.

Fundamental to this motion there are important elements which I think require the serious attention of this House. I should like to try to emphasize those specific aspects, rather than, in a spirit of materialism, to create a procedure or to create a method which enables people to obtain a share of the profits which others should in fact have received on their investments.

Which element is the important one? The important element is the one to which I referred, namely that a general pattern of over-spending exists. It is true of other countries, and it is specifically true of our own country, that a spirit exists that money is for the sole purpose of acquiring the comforts of life, recreation and pleasure, that money is basically there to be spent. Arising out of this specific standpoint there is obviously its opposite, namely that we do not want to save.

Where do you want to invest your money?

At any rate, I would never want to save my money with the United Party, because they are too risky; that would be a gamble in the true sense of the word.

The opposite pole of this overspending, as one of our basic problems, is the corresponding low percentage of saving. This is proved by the facts. It is no secret if I say that we, expressed as a percentage and also in volume, are saving less of our national income than we were even a year ago. This is in accordance with this general spirit. A general need for thrift therefore exists. There is also a need to encourage the private individual to make a special contribution in his own interests, but also in the interests of our country, by saving his money. In this connection I agree with the hon. member, but unfortunately he did not in his argument emphasize this positive aspect, he emphasized the other aspect. There is therefore in the first place, a general need for saving.

But in particular there is also a need for the State to obtain a fair share of the savings of the people. There is therefore a special need for the equilibrium to be maintained between the investment organizations, the private and public sectors. But as a result of the decrease in the tendency to save, as a result of the corresponding tendency to greater spending, it is true of our own fellow-citizens and true of any rapidly developing country that a need has arisen, and that such countries have to cope with development capital problems. If we want to maintain our growth rate, it does not mean that we must adopt a haphazard method, as the hon. member has now proposed; but that we must find one on the basis of scientific methods. I think it is obvious that we have a need for development capital both in the public and in the private sectors. I think this is essential. We can find it in the form of foreign capital. Although we would like to have foreign capital in our country, there are two dangers attached to this. ín the first instance there is the problem that foreign capital on a long-term basis is terribly expensive. Secondly, one cannot allow foreign capital to flow into a country unrestricted. If this should be done, the result would be even more inflationistic than it is at present.

It is obvious that the State needs capital. In that regard I have no quarrel with the hon. member. It needs it for the establishment of the infrastructure, without which economic growth is not possible, or in any case not a maintained rate of economic growth. It is very clear that if one were to take an analytical look at the figures as well as at the methods and the media of saving in our country during the past few years, we will find that individual and public investments in the State in certain sectors or by means of certain media have decreased. Then there are other investments and other media offered by the State. And there we find that the figures are relatively lower than what they ought to be in proportion to the general investment increases. In this specific connection I should like to furnish the hon. members with an example. In volume, long-term securities held by private persons amounted to R45 million in 1960, while in 1970 they amounted to R23.8 million. Actually, this indicates a physical decrease in volume. In respect of the long-term marketable debt of the State, the amount was R1,674 million, as against a total investment in all sectors of R4 360 million. Then hon. members can consider for a moment the non-marketable debt, as for example that of the Post Office. The amount invested in Post Office savings accounts amounted to R148 million in 1961. In 1970 it amounted to R168 million. This was in fact an increase, but it was also relatively too low. We will find the same applies in the case of National Savings Certificates. It is important that we, when we discuss saving, must also consider with what institutions we are saving. It is true that we in South Africa save far more with institutions and that of the total amounts which are saved in our country, 60 per cent is saved with the institutional establishments or investors such as insurance companies and others. For that reason it is quite clear that the opposite of my argument is very true. This is, namely, that with the lower rate of saving another element has been introduced, i.e. that the equilibrium in respect of the investment in the private sector and in the Government sector should also be restored because it is out of balance.

Then we come to the second part of the hon. member’s motion. If we have no quarrel with each other in regard to the fact that we must save more and that we are not saving enough, and in regard to the fact that we are over-spending and should preferably spend less, we come to the basics, and these are the methods. Then we come to the steps which have to be taken to stimulate and to encourage thrift. If that is done a decrease in spending can be ensured. I want too say that this side of the House prefers to approach these measures from a scientific point of view rather than to approach them in such a superficial manner as did the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members on the opposite side of the House.

But you have just this moment proved to us that your plans have failed.

The hon. member says that our plans have failed, but surely he knows that in recent times there has been an unprecedented economic prosperity. He cannot deny that. He also knows that as a result of this, the tendency to overspend exists. The hon. member must not complain about this here. He cannot lay claim to both sides of the argument. What did this Government do to deal with the problem, firstly in respect of saving in general and, secondly, in respect of saving in the specific sectors, with the assurance that the equilibrium between the State and the private sector would be maintained? In the first instance the Government appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Lodder and with specific terms of reference. When one considers the terms of reference of this commission, one finds that these basically prove the statements I have made. What were the terms of reference of this commission? They were to investigate and report on investment matters, or the investment media which are at present being offered by the State; these investment media as compared with those of building societies and of banks in respect of benefits and in respect of interest rates—the whole set-up in this regard. In addition this commission had to make recommendations— and this is important—in respect of firstly, how the State media can be changed or ought to be changed in order to make investment opportunities more attractive and, secondly, the way in which the recommendations could be practically implemented. I now want to assert that this has always been the basic difference between this side of the House and hon. members on the opposite side, i.e. that the one wants to find an instant solution to the problem, which solution is never associated with any specific principles, but which is in fact based on the desire of people to get rich quickly. I want to warn …

What about horse-racing?

Hon. members on the opposite side are mentioning horseracing, but they are outsiders in any case and never win a race. They are never going to win a race, precisely because they are not capable of adopting standpoints of principal. Nor are they prepared to do so in respect of this matter. The fact of the matter is that in this specific case I want to point out to hon. members what could happen if people are prepared, whereas they should have a sense of responsibility, to stimulate the instinct which is in fact a natural one in people, the instinct to do little work and get rich quickly, further. I need not take hon. members very far back. I need only take hon. members back to what happened on the Stock Exchange. I just want to point out to hon. members that on the Stock Exchange, for the period May, 1969 to 1970, there was a paper loss of R1,400 million. I do not want to analyse the reasons for that now. There will be an opportunity later to discuss this. I just want to state that one of the reasons for the malaise we had on the Stock Exchange, is in fact to be found in a spirit of materialism among everyone who wants to get rich without exerting themselves. Let us rather be prepared as a responsible House, to let a message go out from this House for a scientific and responsible approach; let us rather let a message go out from this House to summon our people to the fundamental things. If the hon. member tells us that it is usually the man in the higher income group who is most able to save and that a man with an income of R40,000 per year pays approximately 64 per cent of his marginal income in income tax, and if he then tells us that the benefits of investment without payment of income tax on the interest should be increased, that the State should do this and that this should also be made possible at building societies and banks, then I will say that there is merit in the hon. member’s standpoint. Then it is in accordance with scientific methods. This side of the House rejects the element of gambling in investment, particularly in respect of small investments. The fact that the amount which can be invested is limited to R2,500, proves in fact that this money is expected to come from the small investor, and not from the others. The fact of the matter is —I want to conclude with this—that no one will invest, according to scientific methods, in today’s circumstances, at 4 per cent interest.

May I put a question?

No, Sir. In any case, the hon. member had better not discuss finances. He would do better to talk about Sea Point. That is why we do not approve of the hon. member for Yeoville’s motivation. I believe his ideal task should be to deal with the problems; but he is in fact, in an ill-considered manner, advocating a process according to which people do not receive interest on their investments through scientific methods; he is introducing an element of gambling into it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon member for False Bay, who has just spoken, has spent 20 minutes telling us how necessary it is to have savings, but he has not given any reasons at all, other than an emotional condemnation, not based on fact, against the motion before the House. He started by saying “A rose by any other name …” Let me say immediately that if this were a motion for a State-controlled lottery, I would support it. But that is not the motion before the House. That is not what hon. members in this House are asked to vote upon. We have had a harangue against gambling, but not a single argument against the case put up by my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville. What have we before the House? A suggestion for national savings where under no person risks one single cent of his money. It is an opportunity to contribute to the welfare of the country. Seven years ago we had a similar motion, except for the difference which has been pointed out, that under the present proposals today everyone would receive interest. We had a similar sort of response, except, as has now clearly been demonstrated by the first speaker from the Government benches, that we are at one in this House today, where we differed in 1964, on the need for saving. We are agreed on both sides of the House that there is a need to save.

Although we are agreed on that, we find that without any real case argued, we simply get an immediate reaction against the proposal from the Government benches and stated in the name of the Government. The hon. member kept speaking of “ons” and “die Regering”. “Dis die Regering wat dit wil doen, en dis die Regering wat verantwoordelik is.”

*But what did he do? In fact, he just proved here this afternoon how the Government has made an absolute failure of its entire financial policy as regards saving. The hon. member’s entire argument proved that the Government was unable and had failed to convince the people of the need to save. The hon. member talked of over-spending, extravagance and the wasting of money. He said that today, now that saving was necessary, there was less saving; in other words, it was an admission that the Government has failed in its endeavours to encourage thrift. Where the the Government has failed, where the Government is unable to create a spirit of thrift, we as an Opposition are now coming with a practical, realistic proposal by offering a solution where the Government has no solution. The Government has no solution; this is admitted, and here we are now coming with a solution, and what is the answer? “No, that is gambling”.

It is only the member for Durban Point who can talk so much nonsense.

One would expect, Sir, that after seven years there would be signs of a small change, a small rate of growth, in the thinking of hon. members on the other side.

†One would expect that with the change in the times, in environment and in attitudes, which are not static, some of the thinking of the Government might have moved with it, but I am convinced this afternoon that, like the Dinosaurus and the Dodo the Government is determined to perish; it is determined to die rather than adjust itself to modern thinking and to modern trends.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at our suggestion; let us look at it first of all from the point of view of savings. The Government today is so much in need of savings that it has a forced savings levy, a compulsory savings levy; and it is so desperately in need of savings that it imposes that savings levy even on people over 70 years of age who will never live to recover the money which has been taken from them. They are prepared to make a man of 80 contribute a compulsory savings levy; they take the money by law from him, as a saving, knowing that in 99 cases out of a 100 those people will never live even to draw the interest, let alone to recover their capital.

It is theft.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw.

The hon. member should be ashamed of himself.

Sir, that shows their state of desperation; it shows how desperate the Government is for savings. It is not only in the field of forced savings levies that this sort of things happens. Let us take the bank credit restrictions. Because of the shortage of money, the Government is forcing the commercial banks of South Africa to drive the small man to the wall. They need money so badly that they are taking so much from the banks that they are forcing them to drive the small businessman to bankruptcy. Sir, it is happening all around us. It is possibly even happening to members sitting in this House. The credit restrictions of the Government are getting so serious that the banks are having to break people. Here we now come with a positive proposal designed to help to attract money which the Government will be able to use. The Government talks of inflation. It imposes a sales tax; it increases the sales tax; it clamps down on spending; it has to cut services. It is unable to give services. The Railways cannot carry the goods that are offered. They say that there is no labour crisis. Here sits the hon. the Minister of Labour who has told us that there is no labour crisis. If there is no labour crisis then the only explanation can be that there is a shortage of money, and it is because we do not have the money that the Railways cannot carry the goods; the sick cannot be hospitalized; the aged cannot have old-age homes; people must die on level crossings; South Africa cannot have things like television.

Here, Sir, we are proposing a practical way in which the Government can draw money painlessly from the people and not only painlessly but with the consent and with the enthusiastic support of the people who will provide the money which will help the Government to give some of the services which they are not able to give now. Sir, they talk about patriotism. What can be more patriotic than this motion which my colleague has moved, a motion appealing to the patriotism of people and not only appealing to their patriotism, but adding to it that little spice of something which is in nearly all people in this country. I accept that there are those who have moral objections to gambling. I accept their sincerity; I accept their right to feel like that, and that applies to people on both sides of the House. There are people on both sides of the House who have moral objections to gambling.

And amongst the people outside.

Yes, and amongst the people. But, Sir, we are not asking anyone to gamble. We are not even proposing a method by which people can gamble because gambling implies that you may lose something. As there are people in this House and outside who object to gambling, so there are people who do not object to it. The question is whether you are able to judge the limit; whether you are able to refrain from excesses but to gamble only to the extent where it does not become either a drug and where it does not become a danger to your financial situation; in other words, gambling within one’s own means. There may be people who cannot strike that level. We talk about horse racing. The hon. member for False Bay promised that he would tell us something about horse racing but he never got to it. But there may even be people who gamble on horse-racing; there may even be people who gamble to the extent that they either cannot or will not pay their racing debts and who get posted. That can happen even in the best of societies. We are not asking anyone to gamble, Mr. Speaker. We are asking that people be enabled to invest money with a chance perhaps of a bigger profit if they are lucky. As I was saying, all of us sometimes take a little gamble. There may even be hon. members on that side of the House who are not averse to a little gamble. I have learned that, sometimes to my profit and sometimes to my loss, and I am sure there are members in this House who have benefited when I have lost and others who have lost when I have profited. Let us not be hypocritical about these things. If we want to have a little bet … Sir, I do not know why the hon. the Minister is looking at me like that. I do not know whether he has any objections. If we want to have a little bet, what is wrong with it? I think our gambling laws are archaic but I cannot criticize the laws of South Africa. I can, however, offer something to people which is not a gamble, and that is the opportunity to earn, firstly, a fixed interest and, if they are lucky, something extra over and above that interest.

A bonus.

Let me put it this way, Sir. Take the person who buys shares. Let me take it that a man of the highest moral character, even a man of the church, were to buy some fish shares; would his motive not be profit? Would the thought not be at the back of his mind when he buys those fish shares: “I will get a dividend on them: I will get a profit from it; the capital value of the shares may well increase”? Sir, is that immoral? Is it immoral to buy something in the hope or in the belief that you will earn a profit from it. They may even get a bonus issue. I ask the hon. members who are opposed to this motion to get up and tell me that they are opposed to any member of this House buying shares or being given a bonus issue of shares or making a profit out of shares. It is part of the private enterprise economy of any country. It is part of any free enterprise economy that you have profits and you have losses, and here you have an opportunity through this motion to make a straight profit and in addition have the chance of getting something extra. Surely it is better to do that than to allow the underhand gambling that goes on, making criminals of people, the tempting of people to gamble on horses, the tempting of people to gamble illegally. Of course, the whole of life is a chance. My hon. colleague mentioned some of the things that are a chance. He spoke of a child going to school. Sir, every time you cross a road you are gambling with death because of the fatal road accidents we have discussed in this House over and over again. Are you then going to say that no man should cross a road because he may be knocked over by a motor-car? Driving a motor-car is a gamble because you might have an accident. Are you then not going to drive motor-cars? If you are a farmer, every time you plant a crop you are gambling that you will get the rain which will make that crop germinate and bring it to fruition. What greater gambler is there in South Africa than the farmer, whose whole existence is just one gamble against the elements which he cannot control. Choosing a wife for yourself is a gamble, and if you are a woman, choosing a husband is a gamble. Having children is a gamble. They may turn out well or not so well. Who knows how people will turn out? Who would have thought, for instance, that some of the bonny babies of 40 or 50 years ago would turn into some of those hon. members opposite? Much of our ordinary commercial life is a gamble. Insurance, the taking out of an insurance policy, is a bet with the insurer on whether you will die before a fixed period or not. You are gambling on your own death whenever you take out an insurance policy. You are gambling with a firm which says it anticipates that you will live so long, and you are gambling against living for a shorter time. Sir, our very profession in this House, that of standing as a member of Parliament, is a gamble. What greater gamble can there be, for example, than for the hon. member for Randburg to stand for election, or the hon. member for Boksburg? They are two gamblers; putting themselves up for the Nationalist Party in Boksburg or Randburg is a gamble far beyond what we are asking from them here.

What about Point.

The point there is that the only gamble taken is by the Nationalist Party is whether they lose their deposit or not. That is the only chance there is. But talking about Point, there is a point to that story, too, and many hon. members of this House may perhaps get the point, because a lot of them were very confident of the results in Durban Point and it did not work out as they expected. Now that was gambling, Sir; that was one of the occasions when I made some liquid profit.

But let us come back to the guts of this motion. This motion offers the opportunity not, like the hon. member for False Bay suggested, of scientific saving. This offers an opportunity for patriotic saving, for saving in the interest of the country, and it adds to the attraction of serving your country that extra motive, the motive to which the hon. member for False Bay objected, the motivation of a prize or a profit. It is not a prize; it is rather a bonus or a premium. Whatever you like to call it, it is something extra, and what is the harm in something extra? After all, there is enough sadness in life, there is enough battling in life and enough hardship to justify one wanting something a little better sometimes; and if there is that little ray of hope that perhaps it will be your lucky day, and perhaps if it is your wife’s birthday and you forgot it, you can make up for it with something in the way of a present the next day if you draw a lucky number, what is the harm? Who are we to tell the people of South Africa that we must take the narrowest of concepts and we must follow the thinking of the person who is not prepared to grant an inch of flexibility, and impose that upon the whole of the population? Let those who object, object and not participate. Let those who have moral objections leave these bonds alone. But why should the mass of the people of South Africa be told how they must rule their own conduct and conscience? Who are we as a Parliament to say what the conscience of 20 million South Africans should be? We can encourage them and we can prevent them from committing crimes, but surely a matter of conscience is something for every individual; and if the Government wants to offer the opportunity to serve the country, and in serving it to make a profit, it is within the conscience of the person who makes use of it as to whether he does so or not. We cannot all have fish concessions or diamond concessions. At least let the Government give something which will hold out some little hope for people that for them, too, there will be a little jam on the sometimes very dry bread. I support the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member for Yeoville has placed an extremely important motion before the House here. I do not want to express any doubts in regard to the motives of the hon. member. I accept that he meant well. The hon. member stated his case as he usually does, with a good flow of words and convincingly. Although I have said that I have no doubts about his motives, I do not want to imply that I agree with him on his methods. However, the hon. member for Durban Point destroyed the hon. member for Yeoville’s entire case completely. Why did the hon. member for Yeoville not find another hon. member on his side to help him? It is always the case that if the gods are not with you, they destroy you. The hon. member for Durban Point destroyed the hon. member for Yeoville’s entire case, and he knows it, for look how he is enjoying himself! I wonder whether he did not mean it. After all, there is always a little friction within their ranks. I wonder whether he did not mean it.

We are dealing here with fundamental concepts in regard to money flowing in two directions. The one concept is how much money should flow to the Government; from what sources should the money be derived which flows to the Government. That is the one question which must be asked. The next question we must ask is how much money should flow to the private sector, particularly in the case of South Africa which is a young country, a developing country, a country which has a need for capital investment, particularly in its industries. These are the two questions we must put in regard to the capital flowing in these two major directions. In the method of dealing with these questions my reply to the hon. member for Yeoville is situated. The hon. member mentioned Britain as a country where this type of system had succeeded, but we cannot compare these two countries, and the hon. member knows it. England is centuries ahead of South Africa as far as capital investment in the private sector is concerned, and particularly in the manufacturing industry, and England has almost completely established its infrastructure. They are already overloaded. In South Africa we are establishing industries which can supply us with the necessary products, in an export market in which we are competing fiercely. Herein lies the question which I ask myself when I have the hon. member’s motion before me. Now I must honestly admit that I first set eyes on this motion half an hour ago. I did not think that I would have to discuss it. I am now going to express the ideas I have on this matter.

I now want to indicate the deficiencies I see in the hon. member’s motion. What the hon. member is proposing, means one thing only, and that is that the Government is going to borrow money from the public, because at some time or other those savings will have to be paid back. This is borrowed money. This brings me to a basic hypothesis, namely that money borrowed by the Government and spent by the Government, has an inflationistic effect, particularly if inflation already exists. Whenever one channelizes money according to the method just proposed by the hon. member, one is channelizing money to the Government. It is borrowed money and if the Government spends it, it must give rise to further inflation. Opposed to that I want to say that the Government should rather obtain its money by means of direct taxation. This is a flaw in the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville. In respect his motion is not based on a sound foundation. This is the first objection I have to it.

There is a second objection as well. Many people have already made the suggestion that in order to combat inflation we ought to fix prices and wages. This was tried in England. The basic objection to that is, however, that when you release wages and prices one day, you will have an explosion. When this money is paid back one day, we once again find something is fundamental to inflation, namely a spending explosion. That is my second objection to this hon. member’s motion. A chain reaction will be set in motion.

Nevertheless, the hon. member’s motion deserves much attention. I do not think there is one hon. member on this side or on that side who is not deeply concerned and deeply troubled about the phenomenon that our people do not want to save more. If that hon. member’s motion perhaps has one good effect, then it will be that he has once again, by means of this motion, brought specifically to our attention and to the attention of the public the necessity to save. I want to give him credit for that. At the same time I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point why he is so aggressive in his whole mode of conduct. We are discussing here a matter of general importance. The member’s speech was aggressive from beginning to end. There was a slight admixture of comedy, it was a little jocular, but not very impressive.

Another point which the hon. member also ignored is this: When capital is diverted to the Government and the Government spends that money, which would happen in this case if the hon. member’s motion succeeds, what is going to happen then in a young country like South Africa? I am not speaking now in comparison with other countries. Money which is spent by the Government, is partially unproductive capital utilization. It is capital which is to a large extent invested without any direct productivity. Now the hon. member’s motion implies that we should draw off capital from the public and that we are going to have it available on the Governmental plane, after which the Government will spend it. But let us be practical. Where is the Government going to spend it?

On the Railways.

The Railways looks after itself. The Government is, after all, going to invest a large portion of that money in capital works which do not yield as much interest and are not as productive as we need in South Africa at present. His motion, therefore, also suffers from a lack of practical considerations, considering the period in which we are living. At present we have a scarcity in South Africa of productive capital. That is our greatest scarcity today. Give South Africa in this inflationistic struggle in which we are involved, young country as we are, capital, so that we can apply that capital productively. The most productive way in which that capital may be applied, is to invest it in the manufacturing industry, so that we can produce and so that the process of too much money chasing too few goods can stop, so that we can export, and so that the large, detrimental gap in our trade balance can be closed. We have a scarcity in that regard at present, and the hon. member did not consider it. He did not think far enough there, and part and parcel of the hon. member’s motion is that basic lack of fundamental thinking in regard to the flow of capital in a country like South Africa.

After all, we have many savings channels here in South Africa. I want to mention a few, and with that I want to conclude. I also want to make a suggestion. All the channels through which the public can save today are interest-bearing and pay dividends, but vary between 4 and 6½ per cent. There are the Post Office Savings Bank Certificates, the National Savings Certificates, the State securities and bonds, deposits at banks and building societies. We must not at this juncture venture into uncertain or untested fields in South Africa, in our particular circumstances, which is how I see the hon. member’s motion, one that was not very well thought out. I think that there is an already established and well-tried method we can think about, namely that we should pay higher interest rates to those who want to save and that we should give complete tax exemption on the interest which a man earns on certain savings amounts. Let us make a start with that. I want to express a personal opinion of mine: The House knows that we established a consortium in regard to third party insurance. A number of companies in South Africa who were prepared to join, did so. Cannot we find such a consortium of financial institutions and say that those who want to invest their money with them can invest their money there and that the interest earned there will be tax free on condition that that consortium invests its money in the manufacturing industry. I am simply making this suggestion. If the hon. member rejects my suggestion, I must also reject his motion.

After listening to hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to conclude with what is stated in the Proverbs of Solomon. In Proverbs 10, verse 26, I read—

There is an old proverb which has also been mentioned by our hon. the Prime Minister on occasion, and which I shall never forget, namely: “Avoid the semblance of evil.” The hon. member for Yeoville’s motion, however well-intended, has inherently the semblance of evil. If we were to ask a member of the public what he had against Marais Steyn’s motion, he would say that it is a gambling motion, because it has the semblance of something wrong. After all, we have these channels which we can continue to develop. I promise that hon. member that I will support him 100 per cent if he comes forward with a better thought out motion, based on more fundamental thinking and allied to more fundamental truths as far as our country’s financial structure is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks to the House for the courteous treatment the motion which I introduced this afternoon met with. I introduced this motion in all honesty, as I said at the outset, in the hope that it would elicit a discussion which will help us to achieve better insight into the problem we are dealing with, namely the fact that we want to encourage thrift among members of our public and particular the ordinary citizen, and also want to encourage them to save with the public sector, with Government organizations.

I am particularly grateful to the hon. member for Carletonville for the level on which he conducted the discussion. I think the hon. member for False Bay tried to deal with the matter on merit. But the difficulty I had with him is that I could find nothing concrete in his speech. It consisted of vague generalizations and pompous words and phrases. But I am still waiting for that one concrete suggestion. He stated repeatedly that we should approach this problem scientifically, but there were no signs of any science in his approach. There were no suggestions.

The hon. member for Carletonville on the other hand was concrete. He was determined and clear in his statements. But what I cannot understand is that the hon. member for Carletonville supports the Government and that he has in the past, for example, voted for the compulsory savings levy we all have to pay. His argument was a powerful argument to the effect that such a savings levy has not achieved the purpose set out for it by the hon. the Minister, viz. to counteract inflation, but that it is promoting inflation. When the time arrives, after a maximum period of seven years, for the savings levy to be paid back, the hon. member says that a chain reaction will arise and tremendous inflationary pressure will be exercised on our economy. He should not be sitting in the Government benches. But he should not be sitting with us either, because in this matter we do not agree with him. It is time he established his own party.

I do not want to repeat the arguments. We have conducted the debate. I am grateful that it is apparently the wish of the House that we vote on this matter. I now want to ask members on that side of the House whether it did not strike them that both speakers on their side of the House avoided the principle of the matter? The principle which may perhaps move hon. members to vote against my motion, was not mentioned by any of them. The hon. member for False Bay stated five times that he was going to discuss it, but he did not do so however, although he had more than enough time to do so. That principle is if we are opposed to gambling, we are then opposed to the application of gambling profits in the interest of the state. In my speech I mentioned the fact that R8 million annually is taken by the Provincial Councils from punters alone. That means that an amount of hundreds of millions of rands are bet on horse races in South Africa. This is used by the Provincial Councils for education, for making roads, for eradicating weeds and for hospital services. That money is being used, and nobody objects to this. In my speech I pleaded across the floor of the House for these principles to be dealt with and that we should be told where the consistency comes in with their opposition to this constructive motive. This constructive motion is in the interests of South Africa, and it will help to combat inflation at a stage where it has become imperative to do so. However, we are avoiding reality. Hon. members refuse to accommodate us on the merits of the matter. With that I now want to make an appeal to hon. members on that side of the House. This motion of the Opposition comes at a juncture where it has become imperative to encourage the man in the street to save more and also to save more in the public sector.

It filled me with sorrow and amazement when the hon. member for False Bay told us that out of a total saving of more than R4,000 million, at present only R16 million is being saved by means of national savings securities. It is unthinkable that there should be such a laxity amongst individuals and such a lack of interest in saving with patriotic motives and with the purpose of helping the State to combat inflation. Here a stimulus is now being offered. There will be an orthodox loan to the State but the expectation will be there that some of the people will receive bonuses because they are doing their duty to the State. This is not gambling, because they can lose nothing. They obtain interest on that capital investment of theirs to protect them against inflation and against the depreciation in value of money. Some of them, selected by means of a lottery, receive a bonus from a grateful State for their patriotism. In that spirit I today want to ask that hon. members vote for this motion. It will give our Government an opportunity, the encouragement, and the authority, to do something to encourage our public and urge the people to do their duty. South Africa is in a pickle, as we shall see in the coming Budget. We can offer a partial solution to a problem which is a crucial one, and which is hurting everyone, including every member sitting here.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.