When the House adjourned last night, I was in the process of pointing out that there was nothing, neither in the principal Act nor in this amending legislation, in reference to the qualifications of the Commissioner for Road Transportation or the Commissioner for National Roads. As opposed to that, the qualifications of the Commissioner for Civil Aviation have specifically been laid down. He is, namely, appointed after consultation with the Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation on the grounds of his particular knowledge. I accept that these qualifications were taken in consideration in the past and will continue to be taken in consideration in future. However, in view of the increase in road haulage and the high density of traffic on our roads today, as a result of the increase in the number of road users generally, the time has perhaps come that the former two commissioners should be appointed on the same basis as the Commissioner for Civil Aviation. I suggest that possibly your Commissioner of National Roads could be a nominee of the province. Then we get back to the question which this side of the House has argued with the Minister for some time, in regard to somebody who could be nominated from one of the provincial roads departments because of his particular knowledge of provincial matters, and that the Commissioner for Road Transportation could possibly through private enterprise be appointed either through the Sakekamer or the Chamber of Commerce, or both. I say this in all sincerity because the hon. the Deputy Minister will know, and so will his department, Chat in private enterprise, in road haulage at the moment, there is particular dissatisfaction. There is a feeling growing among them which is almost enmity towards the Commission. They Have a feeling, and I have had letters and a memorandum from my own constituency about this, that they are being unfairly discriminated against through the Board and the Commission. Now I believe that if we had these people represented on the Commission, or on the Board, they would immediately feel that their representation is there and that they have somebody who is ad idem with them, somebody who is in sympathy with them. Then this feeling will probably disappear altogether. I want to ask the Minister please to reply to this and tell me what in fact is being done about the qualifications of these commissioners, and whether he is prepared to go further and give private enterprise in road haulage representation on the Board and on the Commission. As far as the National Roads Commissioner is concerned, he obviously will not be the Chairman of the Board, because the chairmanship is a separate post. That is held by the Secretary for Transport, who obviously must be a man highly qualified in this job. I feel that if in the appointment of the Commissioner there is consultation with the Administrators and the executive committees in regard to the appointment of a man in this position, it would alleviate the friction between the Commission and the provinces to a great extent.

It is obvious that the hon. member for Albany did not do his homework properly. He never made a study of this Bill.

*I want to prove this by referring to the hon. member for Green Point as well. The hon. member for Green Point dealt with clause 2, and I want to state very clearly that clause 2 deals only with the constitution of the National Transport Commission and not at all with its functions. But the hon. member for Green Point did not realize this and yesterday evening he dealt with the fact that it was an autonomous body and that appeals could not be made to the Minister. He wove all these things into his speech. Sir, I want hon. members to look at the principal Act, the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, Act No. 44 of 1948. Clause 2 amends section 3 of the principal Act by the substitution of certain subsections, and the only provision being affected relates to the constitution of the National Transport Commission. But in order to help hon. members, I want to tell them what the position is at present. At present the National Transport Commission consists of the Secretary for Transport, the Commissioner for Road Transportation and the Commissioner for Civil Aviation. These three are public servants. The other four members have to be persons who possess wide experience of and have shown ability in transport or industrial, commercial or financial matters or in the conduct of public affairs. One of the aforementioned members has to represent the provinces. This is the one who will fall away now. One will be appointed after consultation with the C.A.A.C., the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, plus an additional member nominated by the Minister of Defence, but who will not have the right to vote. But the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for Green Point have confused this one member who will be appointed because he has been recommended after consultation with the C.A.A.C., with the member who is a public servant and who is the Commissioner for Civil Aviation. It is not the same person; it is another person. What will the position be after this Bill has been passed? The Secretary for Transport will be the chairman. In addition, there will be a Commissioner for Road Transportation, as at present; a Commissioner for Civil Aviation, as at present, and a fourth person, i.e. the Commissioner for National Roads. There will be four public servants. The qualifications of the Commissioner for Road Transportation and the Commissioner for Civil Aviation are not defined in the original Act. The hon. member has requested that the qualifications of the Commissioner for National Roads be defined in this clause, whereas the original Act did not define the qualifications of any of these persons. The other four members have to be persons who possess wide experience of and have shown ability in transport, or aviation, or industrial, commercial or financial matters or in the conduct of public affairs, and one has to be appointed after consultation with the C.A.A.C. The original Act provided for this. The only amendment now being effected to the original Act, is that the one member nominated by the provinces, will fall away now.

That is what we are objecting to.

The hon. member wanted the qualifications of the Commissioner for National Roads to be defined in the Act, and the hon. member confused this commissioner with the member appointed by the C.A.A.C. Why is this representation falling away? In terms of clause 4 of the National Roads Bill which we passed yesterday, the National Transport Commission is obliged to consult the Administrators with regard to the proclamation of national roads. In other words, the representation of the provincial administrations is falling away because that Act now makes provision for compulsory consultation. Sir, I maintain those hon. members did not do their homework, because what does this clause provide? The clause incorporates the National Transport Commission so that it may construct roads, expropriate land and enter into contracts, etc. In addition the commission is being extended in that provision is being made for an additional member on the National Transport Commission. Furthermore, the nominee of the Administrators is falling away. Sir, I want to put the position very clearly. The argument of the hon. member for Green Point that the question of statutory powers and the right of appeal should have been discussed here as well, is out of order.

That was the Chairman’s ruling.

I shall tell the hon. member why it was out of order.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister should deal with that now; I shall deal with it, if necessary.

I am replying to the hon. member’s statements. Those functions are dealt with and defined in the following Acts: Firstly, the National Roads Act of 1971, the measure we discussed here yesterday; secondly, the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, Act No. 39 of 1930. Section 5 (f) of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act defines the functions as follows—

In other words, the right of appeal about which the hon. member had objections yesterday, is defined there. Furthermore, it is also defined in the Act in regard to applications for air carrier's licences, i.e. the Air Services Act, Act No. 51 of 1949. The right of appeal is not allowed in terms of this Act. This Act, Act No. 51 of 1949, provides explicitly—

The commission's decision in this regard Is final, there is no right of appeal.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must please come back to the specific clause. We may discuss the other points under the specific clauses.

But I am replying to the hon. member for Green Point, who tried to make out a case under this clause yesterday evening that we now had an autonomous National Transport Commission and that the right of appeal to the Minister who could be called to account, would fall away now. I must reply to that because he placed it on record.

No, the hon. member was out of order at the time. There is no reason for the hon. the Deputy Minister to be out of order as well.

If you rule that he was out of order, I shall accept it immediately, but yesterday evening it was not ruled out of order.

What a clever Deputy Minister we have!

Please repeat that. The hon. member should not simply grumble,

What does grumbling have to do with it?

You only grumble, but one cannot hear what you are saying.

In regard to the same clause, the hon. member asked whether the Road Fund was subject to the Controller and Auditor-General. The National Roads Act specifically provides that that Fund is subject to the Controller and Auditor-General. In other words, the fund is subject to Parliament as such. Yesterday we passed the National Roads Act, 1971. In regard to the same clause, the hon. member pointed out that annual reports would no longer be made available because with the establishment of this committee, the advisory committee was falling away. Surely the hon. member reads the annual reports which are tabled in this House. I have here this annual report of 1969-’70. In chapter 7 of this report everything in connection with national roads is mentioned under the heading “Division National Roads”.

But that is only departmental.

It is not departmental, because it is tabled here.

But it is a subsidiary department of your department.

The Secretary for Transport is responsible for tabling an annual report in Parliament, The annual report mentions all activities in this connection dealt with and performed by the National Transport Commission with regard to national roads. Everything in that regard is mentioned in the annual report. All this amendment is concerned with is the incorporation of this commission so as to enable it to construct national roads, etc.

The last problem the hon. member had, to which I have already referred briefly, was in regard to the fact that the member nominated by the Administrators, would fall away. I want to point out once again that section 4 of the National Roads Act, 1971, provides for proper protection because it makes it compulsory for the Administrators to be consulted. I cannot understand the concern of the hon. member in this regard. Mr. Chairman, you will not allow me to say anything further about the autonomy, because you have already prevented me from doing so. I may just point out that we passed an Act here in 1962 which repealed the appeal to the Minister in regard to the National Transport Commission. The hon. member should read Hansard of 15th February, 1962, column 1175. There the Minister of Transport furnished the reasons for discontinuing the right of appeal to the Minister. He said very explicitly—

The Minister went on to say—

Parliament accepted at that time that there should be no appeal to the Minister, I do not know why the hon. member is raising this matter again.

Order! Before I call the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say that I have allowed a very wide discussion, but I now appeal to hon. members to confine themselves to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on one aspect of this matter. Clause 2 not only provides for the reconstitution of the National Transport Commission, but also gives a new legal status to the commission. Therefore I suggest that in considering whether or not the reconstitution of this commission and the new legal status given to it, is desirable, it is necessary to consider what the powers are of this commission. I shall confine myself to the question of whether, having those powers, it should be so reconstituted.

We are indeed dealing only with the constitution of this commission as such.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, my submission is that in order to decide whether this commission should be so reconstituted, one must have regard to the powers which it will exercise. I will not discuss the powers; I will merely make reference to them.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to me indicates one fact quite clearly, namely that neither in his mind nor in the mind of the Government has it registered that this clause creates the most arrogant form of bureaucracy in so far as road construction and transport matters are concerned. I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why I say that. This commission is now to be a body corporate and it is to consist of four public servants and four other persons who may be appointed to it. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that all that was being done was to eliminate provincial representation on this commission. That is not so. This body will now be a body corporate and will be constituted in the form which is laid down in clause 2. I want to suggest that whether or not it should be a body corporate and should be reconstituted, depends on the duties that this commission is to perform. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has rightly said, certain of the powers of this commission will be completely autonomous. They cannot be interfered with by the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister. That being so, one must examine the question whether the commission should be reconstituted in the form which is proposed in this legislation.

Let me just draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to a number of facts in this regard. I do not want to debate the powers which the National Transport Commission will have under this Bill, but merely want to state the facts.

Where do you find the powers designated in this clause as such?

Mr. Chairman, the commission is to be constituted under this clause in a certain form as a “regspersoon”. I say that when one wants to consider whether or not that should be accepted, one must see what the powers of this commission will be and whether it is advisable that it should have those powers.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far in discussing the powers of this commission.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to your ruling, here we are concerned with the reconstitution of the National Transport Commission. If it is to be reconstituted, it will have certain powers entrusted to it.

There is no description of any powers whatsoever in this clause.

No, but a normal legal fact is that the commission has certain powers. The commission is not created in vacuo; it is not created in a vacuum …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the details of this clause.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do so. According to this clause we have a commission consisting of four public servants and four non-public servants. One of the powers of this commission, if we accept this Bill and if we do not change it, is to act as a court of appeal from decisions by the local transportation boards. If it exercises those powers and exercises them in the manner in which it is reconstituted under this legislation, as a “regspersoon”, a legal entity, apart from any other departmental control that there may be …

The present National Transport Commission also acts in the same way.

That is correct, but you are changing the present Transport Commission and you are re-forming it on a different basis altogether. It is still the National Transport Commission but it is re-formed altogether. Now it is a body which, according to this clause, will be a body corporate. This it is not at the present time. Now I want to mention the fact that one of its functions is that it is a court of appeal against decisions of local transportation boards. When it acts in that capacity it acts as a body which has semi-judicial powers. What has happened? When the commission acted and heard appeals in its present inferior form, it was not a body corporate. In its present inferior form the commission, on hearing appeals, has said that it is not obliged to give reasons for its decisions. It does that with its inferior status. Now the hon. the Minister wants to give it more independence and more autonomy under this particular clause. When the appeal in respect of the increased bus fares in Cape Town came before this National Transport Commission, increased fares which meant approximately R1 000 000 additional income to the operating company, the Commission said that they did not have to give any reasons why they had rejected the appeal. I mention this because the Minister must be careful in the constitution of this commission because another appeal is pending before this commission. That appeal is that in respect of Port Elizabeth. If this House proceeds to accept this recommendation which is before us, then there are explosive aspects of the pending appeal in Port Elizabeth. That is going to be in the hands of a body corporate over which this Minister has no authority whatsoever. That commission can reejct that appeal and it need not give any reasons for its rejection whatsoever.

That is the position at present.

I want to warn the hon. the Minister that it is undesirable to extend the autonomy of this body. It is undesirable because of those powers which it has and if there are repercussions the hon. the Minister must not look to this side of the House and say that we did not warn him. I believe those powers must not be delegated to a body of this sort. I want to say that this clause evidences the degree of growth of bureaucratic government and that we on this side of the House will never support such a measure.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential for us to put this matter right. In the first place, the hon. member for Green Point wanted to drag in the fact that the National Transport Commission was being incorporated, and he wanted to hold that up as a dangerous situation which would arise when the Transport Commission had to deal with appeals.

Yes.

He says yes. The hon. member also put questions in respect of appeals to the National Transport Commission. In the first place, in terms of the Air Services Act it considers applications, and grants or refuses them. This has been the position throughout the years. There has never been a right of appeal to the Minister. Because this commission is being incorporated now and because the one member nominated by the provincial administrations is falling away, and his place is being taken by an official, i.e. the Commissioner for National Roads, the hon. member considers this as being something dangerous and is of the opinion that this task can no longer be left to the National Transport Commission and that a right of appeal to the Minister should be granted. In addition, the hon. member mentioned the pending appeal in Port Elizabeth. In the Motor Carrier Transportation Act of 1930, specific provision is made for appeals against the decision of local boards to be heard and decided. Now the hon. member for Green Point says that because the constitution of the commission is being changed and an official, i.e. the Commissioner for National Roads, will serve on it and because a representative of the provinces will no longer serve on it, we should no longer leave to the autonomy of the commission these appeals it deals with, but should take it away.

It is dangerous.

He says it is dangerous, but gives me no reasons why it is dangerous. Has it suddenly become dangerous because the commission is to be constituted differently?

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister agree that the commission should give decisions on appeal without giving reasons for their decisions?

Yes. It has always been the position. The Motor Carrier Transportation Act of 1930 was passed under a United Party Government. When this Act was drawn up, it was never said in respect of appeals that the board should give reasons for its decisions. Now that they are no longer in power, the commission must suddenly furnish reasons. However, when they drew up the Act in their wisdom, it was sufficient for them that the National Transport Commission should deal with appeals …

Differently than under Clause 2.

Clause 2 deals with the constitution of the commission and has nothing to do with its functions. I want to point out that there is one Act in terms of which appeals to the Minister are allowed, i.e. the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Amendment Act, Act No. 16 of 1966. In terms of this Act, appeals are in fact allowed, but in respect of all the other Acts, the United Party has never requested this. Now, simply because the constitution of the commission is being improved in order to facilitate its work, and because it is being incorporated, they think it will be a dangerous body which should give reasons for its decisions in respect of appeals. I am sorry, but I cannot satisfy the hon. member in this regard.

This clause provides for the repeal of section 11 of the principal Act and we on this side of the House cannot agree with that. Section 11 of the principal Act was that section which provided for the advisory committee on roads, and we believe that this is absolutely necessary. We spoke about it in the Second Reading and we stand by what we said then. In order to discuss this clause one must go back to the provisions of section 11, and particularly subsection (2). It says that in appointing the members of the committee the Governor-General shall include at least one representative nominated by each Administrator. Then subsection (4) sets out the duties of the committee, namely that “the committee shall consider all matters referred to it by the Minister or initiated by any of its members, and shall make recommendations in connection therewith to the commission. The functions to be entrusted to the committee in terms of subsection (1) shall include the initiation, consideration and recommendation of schemes of works to be undertaken on declared roads; Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not preclude the commission from itself initiating any particular scheme of works to be undertaken on a declared road." I think that is important. Then it is further provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the commission and the committee on any such scheme, the Minister shall consult with the Administrator affected before arriving at a decision. I cannot see the necessity for doing away with this committee.

*It almost looks to me like a motion of no-confidence in the provinces, because this committee represents the provinces and the administrators. It is an advisory committee that has given very good service in the past, and we on this side of the House would like to hear from the hon. the Minister why its abolition is necessary. Is it because the provinces did not do their duty, or is it because the committee did not do its duty? If it was the latter, could they not have asked the administrators for other nominations? I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that the basis for this decision is something quite different. With the previous clause we spoke about, we are now actually creating a fifth province in South Africa in connection with the building of roads. We on this side of the House feel very strongly about the fact that the provinces, in particular, should liaise with the commission. We have enough provinces and we do not want more, I would very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he cannot reconsider this clause and withdraw it, because the conditions contained in that section 1hat is now being repealed, still gives the commission and the Minister the power to take their own decisions. They still retain the right to make decisions. It is an advisory committee that has given very good service in the past. We would very much like to see that committee being retained, and also its advisory committee that has given it advice in the past. The technical committee, which is not a statutory committee, also gave very good service, and we would very much like to see the old section retained, that the committee be retained and that statutory powers be given to the technical advisory committee which also gave them advice in the past.

Sir, we have a very strange phenomenon in this House. In the no-confidence debate this year, and also in the Budget debate, the Opposition came along with the accusation that we are continually engaged in developing our governmental structure and increasing the costs involved by establishing cumbersome Public Service bodies that are not productively active.

Yes.

hon. members must remember that yesterday we passed a Bill here, the National Roads Act of 1971, and that in section 4 we very expressly make it encumbent upon the National Transport Commission to consult the Administrators. In other words, there will have to be consultation with the Administrators in terms of a legal provision. Hon. members on that side want to saddle the National Transport Commission, which will now have total physical control over the building of national roads—not over other roads—with an advisory committee to advise it about what work it must do. That would be a complete overlapping of work. It is altogether unnecessary.

It is a link-up with the provinces.

Provision is made for liaison with the provinces in clause 4 of the Act passed here yesterday. It is then surely unnecessary to appoint an advisory committee in order to have further liaison with the provinces. Sir, I simply cannot see why hon. members on that side want to saddle the State with advisory committees that serve no purpose, that will be doing no work and which would entail further expenses for the State.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell this Committee whether the advisory committee which normally consists of the MECs costs the State anything at all? I believe that it did not. Those MECs did not get anything extra for their work, except their travelling allowance and their normal salaries which they are paid in any event,

Is the hon. member suggesting that travelling allowances do not cost anything?

This is not travelling overseas.

How much did it in fact cost? That is what I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

It is an unnecessary committee.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister further tell me that the Administrator of a province knows everything about every department in his province? He does his best to know it, but he is human like anybody else and he has his representatives and his MECs to whom he delegates his powers. If you are going to consult with the province, surely you will consult with the MEC in charge of roads, as well as with the Administrator, because it may just be that the Administrator does not have particular knowledge of that particular project which is under consideration, whereas the MEC will have knowledge of it because he is in touch with his provincial road engineers. Sir, I think under this system you are going to have a great deal more trouble with the provinces than you have had in the past.

As one who has spent all his life by the sea side of Natal and has seen the ebb and the flow and the play of the tides in the semi-enclosed bays and lagoons, I want to say that I am concerned about the definition of “high-water mark” as contained in this clause. While saying this I appreciate that this definition has probably been taken over from another Act where it probably has a different connotation as far as the public is concerned. If anybody who is used to the vagaries of the tide on the East Coast of our country reads this definition—notwithstanding, as I have said, that it has been in use in another Act but for a different purpose—he will probably find himself in trouble if he were to be asked to go to an unknown stretch of the beach and drive in a stake or marker and say “the definition describes this point where I am now putting the marker: the definition fits this point and no other”. After all, that is what is required of a legal definition—it has to be precise so that the ordinary person can easily read and understand it. Moreover. it is of particular significance in this Bill because of valuable considerations. For instance, there are considerations in connection with the taking of salt, the taking of seaweed, which is a very valuable consideration today, the taking of shells, etc. These are valuable considerations and, consequently, it is important to know in respect of an area of the beach—for example, when a person has a concession there —that his concession is limited by that particular boundary and that he knows where that boundary is. He should know exactly where the limits of his concession are so that he can avail himself of the maximum amount of salt, or seaweed or whatever the case may be. If there is doubt, failure to be precise on this point, it becomes a matter of considerable importance, not only to the individuals concerned but also to the general public. There are rights that go with this definition, rights of access, apart from rights to trade. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to address myself to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, who is handling this matter, and say to him that he will be well aware—even in South-West Africa—of the necessity of having a precise definition. I am sorry to say that this definition is not precise. The definition reads—

Now, Sir, what is an ordinary storm?—

What is the most stormy period of the year? Presumably it is the period of the highest storms—

You do not speak about the flood of the sea. There are floods in rivers, but you do not have a flood in the sea fixing the height that sea-waves reach during a storm. The sea-waves are subject to a storm but not to a flood. This is an unheard-of phrase so far as we who have lived by the sea all our lives, are concerned. You can have a flood which rushes into the sea and creates disturbance and so forth, but it does not affect the height to which the tide goes. A storm in the sea can decide how far the waves of a storm will go. The rise and fall between high tide and low tide will very often determine how high waves will go up the beach. At high tide during a storm as compared with low tide during the storm, you will probably get the same rise and fall. How do you fix that point? I want to impress on the hon. the Deputy Minister the need to be precise, If the hon. the Deputy Minister will say that this is such an important matter that a local authority or anybody who can claim a real interest in the beach, will have a right to apply to the Surveyor-General to have their rights established by some kind of a permanent marker, like a beacon or something of that nature. I will be happy about it, but this definition is most imprecise and very valuable rights are concerned. I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister how they propose to deal with this matter in the light of this definition.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown raised more or less the same question during the Second Reading stage of this Bill. He was more concerned about the case of tidal rivers, where from time to time, when the flow in a river has become weak or has stopped, the river mouth is silted up. As far as the problem of both this hon. member and the hon. member for South Coast is concerned, I have to point out—and I think the hon. member is aware of this fact—that the provisions in respect of this matter in the Bill have been taken over from the Sea-shore Act, which has been implemented for years in this way in respect of shells, sea-weed and where it may have occurred, the exploitation of salt. In actual fact the definition contained in the Bill under discussion, only relates to these things I have mentioned. Shells and sea-weed will be more particularly concerned in the matter. As far as the silting up of the mouth of a tidal river is concerned, the attitude in respect of this provision has in the past been, and this should, to my mind, be the attitude in the future as well, that irrespective of whether it silts up from time to time the mark should be determined at such normal flood times, if there is any need for that mark to be determined. I do not want to argue with the hon. member about whether normal flood is the correct word. It is the word which is used by the legal people and which has been in use for so many years. The determination of this mark in this way will normally apply to the coast. I readily want to concede to the hon. member for South Coast that it will at no time be easy, no matter how the definition reads, to determine, for example, the low-water mark or the high-water mark exactly. As a matter of fact. I think it will be even more difficult to determine the low-water mark exactly than to determine the high-water mark, because a more or less clear mark is left at high tide.

Let us take them one at a time.

Over against this the low tide does not leave a clear mark, because of the swell of the sea. For example, no rights for shells or sea-weed will be granted above the high-water mark or below the low-water mark so that two parties will clash with each other in respect of that. It would be quite illogical to grant such rights. In a case Where problems arise and where the party concerned is not absolutely clear about exactly up to where he may exercise his rights, the matter will have to be settled through consultation. The exact point to which such a mark extends will then have to be agreed on. In the light of experience gained in the past in the application of this definition as laid down in the Sea-shore Act, I can only say it has not given rise to any problems in the past. I think we can therefore accept the definition as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is wrong when he says that it has not created trouble in the past. I am not a lawyer and therefore I cannot give the hon. the Minister chapter and verse or references to decided cases, but there have been decided cases where the Supreme Court was called upon to determine what was the high-water mark. There is certainly one case on the Natal coast and it is repeatedly quoted. Here the Supreme Court held that the high-water mark was the line of the first vegetation inland from the sea water. In other words, vegetation would not grow below where the sea normally reached at high tide. There the vegetation was accepted as the high-water mark. That is a decided case, but I am sorry that I cannot quote the case here to the Deputy Minister. In any case, it was a practical case and it was based on very sound botanical laws. In other words, there have been troubles in this regard. The point is that this law is before us because of new developments, because of important developments associated with commercial activities. In other words, a valuable consideration is now associated with the question of the precise position of the high-water mark. We did have troubles in the past and some of them have led to court cases.

In connection with what did they have these cases?

In connection with the precise determining of high-water marks. I recollect that it arose in cases where leases to local authorities were concerned. At any rate, I can recall one such case where the local authority acquired the lease of land down to the high-water mark. People had the right to go along onto the piece of land between the high-water and the low-water marks, but they were not allowed on the leased land above high-water mark. A man could therefore not be had up for trespassing if he went below the high-water mark, but he was trespassing above the high-water mark. Now, the question is where was he trespassing? That had to be determined, because it had become an offence. That decision had to be made. There were also rights which were involved in that case on the Natal coast. There the so-called Admiralty Reserve came into the case. Now this Admiralty Reserve is State-owned land. The State-owned land is that section which is situated 120 feet above high-water mark. What was high-water mark in this case? It had to be determined to establish where the limits of the Admiralty Reserve were. In some cases Admiralty Reserve land has actually been transferred, where a certificate of consolidated title has been taken out in the past. Those rights have been transferred. Here again it is necessary to have a defined boundary. Court cases have already been tried and some of these cases have been referred to the Supreme Court, With the changing circumstances and valuable considerations which are now hinging on this definition, we have to get certainty about it. If I may exaggerate for the purpose of pointing my argument, let me say that one had the right to collect diamonds on the beach in the past. Now it would be of extreme importance to the man who had the right to collect the diamonds to know whether he was picking them up in the area where he had the right to collect them, or whether he was picking them up on somebody else’s property. Where valuable considerations are concerned—and that is what we are faced with today—it is necessary to have a clear-cut line and a clear-cut boundary, just as a man wants a clear-cut boundary for his own farm. Under the changing circumstances in which we are living in South Africa, and with these valuable considerations in mind, let us have a fresh look at this matter to see what we can do about it. All I can ask the hon. the Minister at the moment is that he should give us an assurance that some other authority, the Surveyor-General or somebody, will define such a boundary if called upon to do so. Surely we do not want the position to be that we have to say to the public at large that if they do not like the definition and if they cannot define on any given beach how far up the beach the waves go at the highest storm, they must go to court and let the judges decide. We refer the public to the law courts every time whenever they feel that their interests are in jeopardy. I do not think that that is fair, because it hinges entirely upon the question of a specific and precise definition. The definitions in regard to land are almost something sacred in South Africa. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to accept that there have not been any disputes in the past. There have been and they have been taken to court. Changing circumstances are now making for very valuable considerations to attach to the precise piece of land which we are seeking to describe here. A precise definition is very necessary indeed.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why the hon. member and I cannot agree, is that he introduces problems here which arose in respect of matters which are not relevant here. The only things we have to deal with in this definition are shells and seaweed. Salt will hardly come into it. These are the only things involved here, and this is also the definition in respect of which I said that to my knowledge no problems have been experienced in the past as far as these commodities are concerned.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom has brought me a very learned book with the title “Principles of South African Law” in which, on page 160, the following is stated—

This more or less corresponds with what we have here.

That is right. You have taken it from there and from the other Act.

The wording is exactly the same as that in the Sea-shore Act.

It is a blind following of language that has been used before, but it does not take changed circumstances into account.

I am sorry, but I do not think that I am in a position to improve on this and I doubt whether the department is in a position to improve on it. If any difficulty is experienced in future, we will try to find a solution.

What a confession!

I doubt whether the hon. member for South Coast can suggest a wording that will solve this problem.

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

As hon. members will notice, the amendments proposed are merely versional corrections, except that provision is also made for certain delegation of powers. As far as this delegation of powers is concerned, I want to refer to certain points raised by the hon. member for Parktown in respect of this clause during the Second Reading debate. Some of his observations were in respect of the delegation of powers to which I think I replied fairly fully when I referred to them in my Second Reading speech.

The hon. member for Parktown also raised the matter of the principle of bilingualism. In terms of clause 3 the Minister may decide that notice must be given to the public who may have an interest in any steps which are envisaged. It is then provided that such a notice, if the Minister so decides, shall be served by way of publication in the Government Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in that area. Now, as far as the Government Gazette is concerned, the notice is bilingual, of course. As far as the other newspaper or newspapers are concerned, I want to suggest that the position should remain as it is and that it should not be changed, because real situations may arise where it may serve no specific purpose to advertise in two newspapers, for example in a separate English-language and in an Afrikaans-language newspaper. I may mention Walvis Bay as an example. There is a local newspaper circulating there which is a bilingual one. It appears in both English and Afrikaans at the same time, and that newspaper has the largest circulation of all the newspapers circulating in Walvis Bay. It is read by both language groups. Consequently it is quite adequate to publish a bilingual advertisement in that newspaper. If it were to be required that such an advertisement should be published in at least two newspapers, it would mean that that possibility would be eliminated. Perhaps this is more theoretical, but I am told that these provisions in respect of notices in newspapers are just the same as they were in the Sea-shore Act, and that it was customary in the past for the Department of Agriculture to insert an advertisement in both languages in only one newspaper, whether an English or an Afrikaans newspaper, when they advertised in only one newspaper. This may be done provided such a newspaper is prepared to accept an advertisement in the other language as well, to which there will normally be no objection. Therefore I do not think this provision should be removed because the position may arise where, for all practical purposes, only one newspaper circulates in a certain community, or that the other newspapers circulating there only do so to a very limited extent. That would not make sense either.

Then the hon. member for Parktown also asked a question as to what the position would be at Langebaan, where salt is collected. In terms of these amendments now being effected, the position at Langebaan remains unchanged, because existing concessions are recognized in this Bill. Therefore it will continue under the same rights. Hon. members will understand that it is quite impossible for me to give assurances in respect of concessions after the expiry of the normal periods for which they were granted. Because a session may expire in any case, it would make the whole idea ridiculous.

With reference to section 14 (2), and merely for the sake of legal accuracy, this clause provides for the removal from the seashore of minimum quantities by individuals of either shells or sand, in quantities not exceeding 10 kg. Does the hon. the Minister intend that this should be 10 kg dry weight or 10 kg wet weight? It could lead to court cases.

I will look at the matter and if it is necessary to effect an amendment I shall move it in the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey to you the gratitude of the council of the University of the Orange Free State for your decision to cause this private Bill, which is not contentious and is not prejudicial to the rights or interests of any person or body, to be dealt with as a public measure.

The hon. the Minister of National Education is also satisfied with the University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act (No. 21 of 1949) being amended by these means and has, as a matter of fact, expressed his concurrence in the proposed amendments included in this measure. I take pleasure in expressing my appreciation for the friendly interest and approachability on the part of both the hon. the Minister and his department.

The proposed amendment in clause I relates to the constitution of the council of the University of the O.F.S, the body in which the government and executive authority of the university have been vested. The senate, the body in which the regulation of the instruction of the several departments has been vested, has at present two representatives on the council of the university. However, the expansion of the university has resulted in specialized matters in the academic sphere having to be dealt with by the council to an increasing extent.

Since 1962 the number of departments in the faculty of arts has increased from 12 to 20. These additions include, inter alia. Drama and Stage craft, Librarianship, Scriplurology and Art History and Appreciation. The very important Department of Nursing has been added to the Faculty of Social Sciences. At present this department is being recognized as the training school for nurses in the Orange Free State. The Paleontological Research Institute, which enjoys international recognition, was recently integrated with the department of Botany in the Faculty of Physical Sciences. This institute concerns itself with the study of pre-historic plants and climate and is very closely connected with oil research. The same applies to the Flavanoid Research Institute in the Department of Chemistry. This institute concerns itself with the study of tannins and envisages using this fundamental knowledge for processing, wattlebark tannin into usable tannin, and is also connected with oil-drilling substances. Furthermore, as from this year a start has also been made at the U.O.F.S. with Geo-hydrological training—the only university in the country which offers such a course.

The Faculty of Medicine, which is the youngest faculty at the university, has started this year with 21 departments. This vigorous growth, which is geared to keeping abreast with the demands of our time, also finds an echo in the number of members on the staff, students enrolled and degrees conferred. In 1962 the university had 292 members of staff, and this year it has approximately 450. In 1962 2 514 students enrolled, and this year the number is 4 503. In 1961 288 degrees were conferred and in 1970 the number was 558. Over the same period the number of students in hostels showed an increase of 300 per cent.

As a result of the additions I have just outlined, an increasing number of cases brought before the council, are referred to committees. This results in any particular representative of the senate having to serve on a great many more committees of the council. Hence the extension of the senate representation from two to three members. And in order to ensure that professional knowledge and interests are represented, it is being provided that, not fewer than one member shall represent the Human Sciences Faculties and not fewer than one shall represent the Physical Science Faculties.

Clause 2 seeks to substitute section 23 of the principal Act. At present disciplinary measures may only be prescribed by statute of the university. However, amendments to these statutes, in terms of section 17 of the Universities Act (Act No. 61 of 1955), are a lengthy process. It may happen that the council of the univeristy has to lake urgent steps in order to determine lines of conduct amongst students, and since such a matter is of a domestic nature, it is desirable to grant to the council of the university the authority to make such rules.

Clause 3 seeks to amend section 61 of the statutes of the university. The effect of this amendment will be to add the degrees mentioned in the Bill before this House to the degrees which the university was authorized to confer before 1st January, 1967. An amendment to the relevant statute by an Act of Parliament is necessary in order to confirm the validity of the said new degrees, which have been incorporated in the curricula of the university, as well as actions arising therefrom.

The curricula and instructions for and the conferment of the degrees in question were approved by the council of the university and by the Minister of National Education before January, 1967. However, the relevant amendments were not incorporated by the university in its statutes. Although this was not done, it did not detract from the contents and significance of the said degree courses. This envisaged amendment brings the statutes into line with an existing situation—it is therefore a technical correction.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this Bill just introduced by the hon. member. There are just a few comments that I think are called for under the circumstances. We have no objection to clause 1, which now makes I provision for three members of the Senate to be represented on the council instead of two, as the hon. member explained in his speech. They will be representative of the human sciences as well as the natural sciences, literature, economics, and so on, and cover the whole academic field. In fact, section 7 of the original Act, which is being amended here, sets out the composition and the powers of the council. We find it entirely in order that representation should be extended.

Section 23 of the original Act, the subheading of which is “Discipline” says—

We simply want to note that clause 2 of the present Bill substitutes a new section 23, to make students subject to disciplinary provisions, prescribed by the council itself “notwithstanding” I am quoting here— “anything contained in section 17 of the Universities Act, 1955”. I agree with the hon. member s comments on this particular clause. The above section in the 1955 Universities Act, governing statutes and regulations for a university, is rather a long-winded business. It makes it imperative for any statutory amendments to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament and to be published in the Gazette. From the date of ministerial approval they then become law. This applies to disciplinary action as well. Clearly, the disciplinary provisions in clause 2 of this Bill are an attempt to waive the lengthy procedure set out in the 1955 Universities Act and to give the council of the University of the Orange Free State the necessary powers to handle disciplinary matters on an ad hoc basis and without delay. I must say I find it a litte difficut to understand why the university authorities took so long to get round to amending this aspect of affairs. They must have found it an awfully longwinded business dealing with discipline under the circumstances. Perhaps they do not have any undisciplined students in the Free State—I would not know.

I would like to make a few comments on clause 3. This clause retrospectively alters and adds to regulations governing listed degrees that may be conferred by the university, as published in the Regulations gazetted originally on 22nd March, 1963. Since then, the university has conferred a whole lot of other degrees which are not mentioned in the original list, which are technically invalid and which the enactment of clause 3 will now validate retrospectively, if I understand the legislation correctly. This provision seems to me to prove, unfortunately, a certain degree of inefficiency, either within the Education Department itself or amongst the university authorities, since quite a number of degrees in various faculties have been awarded and accepted on this bais for the past four years.

Now the hon. member comes with this legislation, legislation which we do not oppose, asking that these degrees which have been conferred since 1967 and held with great pride by the people who received them, be retrospectively validated in terms of the Statute. Let me remind the House that last year the hon. the Minister of National Education found it necessary to do something similar when he introduced an amendment to the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act to obtain permission to draft and promulgate regulations retrospectively in terms of the Act of 1964 in order retrospectively to validate all the meetings held and the decisions taken by the statutory committee established in terms of that Act. In that way the allocation of bursaries had to be made valid retrospectively as well as the Committee’s handling of public moneys from that fund.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am pointing to the parallel, Sir. In connection with this Bill I am charging someone in some quarter of the academic field with inefficiency. Ever since 1967 certain degrees for which no provision was made have been conferred by the University of the Orange Free State, an action which was not legal in terms of its Statute.

There is no parallel.

There is a parallel in so far as there has been inefficiency in both cases.

In any event, we have no objection to this Bill. I only wanted to place on record our disapproval of the manner in which it has become necessary retrospectively to validate these degrees which have been conferred since 1967.

There is not, as the hon. member has been trying to imply, a parallel between these two cases. The university is autonomous, and consequently it has every right to amend its statutes by itself. Consequently, what happened here cannot be laid at the door of the Minister or his department. I want to emphasize this point.

The university authorities, then.

I want to express my appreciation to the Opposition for the fact that they are not opposing this Bill, except in so far as the comments of the hon. member for Wynberg are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the amendments in the Bill before the House are actually self-evident, I nevertheless want to make a few explanatory comments.

All the clauses are concerned with the payment of appreciation contributions in respect of affected property.

I think it is advisable for me to explain briefly in this respect the existing provisions of the Community Development Act, 1966.

Section 34 of the said Act deals with the sale of affected property, and subsection (4) provides that if the consideration for which such a property was acquired, exceeds the basic value of that property, the owner of that property shall upon transfer pay to the Community Development Board an appreciation contribution equal to—

1. (1) 25 per cent of the difference between the basic value and the consideration after the expiry of five years as from 1st February, 1967, or the basic date, whichever is the later date, and
2. (2) 50 per cent of the said difference after the expiry of six years as from the said dates.

For the sake of completeness it may be added that if the consideration for which the property was sold, is less than the basic value, the said board must upon transfer pay to the owner a depreciation contribution equal to 80 per cent of the difference between the basic value and such consideration. The payment of a depreciation contribution by the board has always remained the same, namely 80 per cent, as explained, ever since the date of proclamation.

As regards the appreciation contribution, it follows therefore that in the case of a group area proclaimed prior to 1st February, 1967, such a contribution would become payable by the owner of the property to the board if he were to sell after 1st February, 1972.

I may add that initially the appreciation contribution was calculated at 50 per cent as from the date of proclamation. With the amendment effected in terms of Act No 42 of 1967, this concession (as the provision reads at present) was made, i.e. that no appreciation contribution shall be payable to the board before the expiry of five years after 1st February, 1967, or the date of proclamation, whichever is the later date, and a contribution of only 25 per cent shall be payable for the subsequent year and then the full 50 per cent contribution after the expiry of six years.

It has now become apparent, however, that owing to circumstances unauthorized persons in certain areas will have problems in resettling or selling their properties before the expiry of five years, i.e. before 1st February, 1972. As I have already explained, if they sell after 1st February, 1972, they will have to pay an appreciation contribution equal to 25 per cent and, after the expiry of another year, a contribution equal to 50 per cent, which in their particular cases may be construed as a hardship.

In order to prevent any such situation, I now propose that the concession made in 1967, should now he extended by three years. All the amendments contained in the clauses, are consequent upon this extension.

In conclusion I may just add that this extension of the period to eight years, only concerns the payment of the appreciation contribution to the Community Development Board when an unqualified person sells his property, and that it does not affect the existing requirements in regard to the occupation of the unqualified persons. Of course, unqualified persons must be resettled in their own areas as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. I, particularly find myself cast in the unusual role of actually having to thank the Minister of Community Development, but I do so without reservation in this particular instance. This Bill is something we have asked for and, like Oliver Twist, we will ask for a lot more in the future. We are thankful for any small mercies which alleviate the sufferings of the people who are affected under the Act, This particular amending Bill will help a great many people who still have to be moved in terms of the Group Areas Act. On their behalf, naturally, we are more than pleased to see that this extension of time has been granted. It is only natural that people who know that they have to move some time in the future tend to hold on as long as possible before actually making that move. They also hold on because they believe that by holding on they may be paid a better price than the one offered when the declaration is first made. This will help those people considerably.

I should, however, like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one or two problems I should like him to clear up while we have this opportunity. The Bill refers to “a disposition" which takes place after the expiry date. This word “disposition" has caused slight confusion among the people affected and among estate agents. I should like the hon. the Minister to clear up this point. Does the date on which these people have to sell date from the disposition or the date of transfer? Elsewhere in clause I mention is made of the transfer of the property. As we know, it sometimes takes very many months for the transfer of a property to be registered. If this provision affects people only from the date of transfer, the extra three years granted may in fact not be three years in practice, but a good deal less. I should therefore like the Minister to explain whether the imposition of having to pay the department a percentage dates from the date of transfer of the property, or from the date of completion of the deed of sale.

There is just one other point I should like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I wonder whether he will bear in mind, when this time starts to run out, that certain estate agents in certain areas have taken advantage of this particular state of affairs. They approach affected people and persuade them to sign a form, generally speaking a form of their own composition, in which these people are told that they will receive a particular price for their properties. The prices which these estate agents suggest the affected people might in fact receive, are far in excess of what could be considered reasonable. These people are then persuaded to sign this form and when the form is submitted to the department, the department exercises its pre-emptive right according to the law and pays a price far below the price originally suggested by the estate agent. I believe that this is something we must look at, because estate agents have already persuaded people to sign these forms, in which prices are mentioned which are quite obviously far in excess of what is reasonable.

Have you any ideas as to how we can deal with that problem?

Yes. I should like to suggest to the Minister that in cases such as this the department should not exercise its pre-emptive right so hurriedly, but should rather simply reject this form and allow the owner time to try to dispose of this property in the private sector rather than through the department. I think that this would stymie these particular estate agents. At the moment the snag is that the estate agents have these forms signed, and regardless of what the department pays for a property once it has exercised its pre-emptive right, the estate agents are still paid their commission. The estate agent is therefore not being sincere at all. He is telling the owner that he will receive a certain globular figure for his property, which is completely unrealistic. The owner in all seriousness and sincerity completes the form, and then the department offers a price much lower than the estate agent has suggested, hut the estate agent loses nothing. He is still paid his commission on the lower price, so he is on a very good wicket indeed. I should like the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter so that we can at least stop the estate agents from taking advantage of the position. With those few words I should once again like to say that I am more than happy on this occasion to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a most unusual position. I suppose the debate on my Vote will not be as peaceful as the debate on this Bill.

You are quite right.

I can assure that hon. member that he will be the worst off.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred to the extension of time provided for in this Bill and asked whether the extension of time will be given as from the date of transfer or the date on which the deed of sale is completed. The extension of time is given from either the date of proclamation or the 1st February, 1967, whichever is the shortest. Therefore, I think the objection of the hon. member is fully met. It seems to me that the matter of transfer does not come into this. However, I will go into this further and if the hon. member finds it necessary that this should be discussed during Committee Stage, I shall gladly do so.

The hon. member also referred to the matter of estate agents wanting to cash in on this type of transaction. I am not certain whether we can take the necessary steps in this regard, I have a note on this matter from my department, but the handwriting is so ugly that I cannot read it. However, I do not see how we can interfere if these people come to a private agreement with the owners of the property. But if there is any problem in this regard, the hon. member is welcome to discuss it with me during the Committee Stage.

I wish to thank the hon. member very much for his support. I think this is about the last time I will have to thank him this year. Therefore, I want to assure the hon. member of my full-blooded gratitude for his very reasonable attitude. I never expected it from him!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill at present before the House deals with a very important duty of the local authority, viz. to ensure that its citizens are properly accommodated.

The section of the Slums Act, 1934, which is being amended in this respect, viz. section 3 (clause 2 of the Bill), has always provided that it is the duty of a local authority to take all lawful, necessary and reasonably practicable measures, inter alia, for ensuring the provision of suitable housing generally and as far as circumstances permit for the inhabitants of its district.

The amendment of the section contained in the Bill, now provides that that duty also includes the provision of land for residential purposes.

As you know, the National Housing Commission makes funds available for the accommodation of—

1. (a) sub-economic families whose earnings are not in excess of R130 per month in the case of Whites and R60 per month in the case of Coloureds and Asiatics. Obviously these families are, owing to their low incomes, not potential purchasers of vacant residential sites;
2. (b) economic families that are, in the case of Whites, not earning more than the following incomes:

Up to 31st March, 1971 the maximum income limit for White families was still R225 to R300 per month, depending on the number of children in the family. The income limit as indicated above was increased with effect from 1st April, 1971, since increases in salaries caused many families to fail to qualify for economic housing, while they could not care for themselves either. Even with the increased income families are still unable to obtain houses for themselves on the open market, and the increase in the limits as a first step was therefore necessary.

It has also been the experience that the purchasing power of families who fall in the above-mentioned income categories is so limited that they cannot afford building sites costing more than R600 to R800 and at the most up to R1 000, and consequently they for the most part make use of houses built by local authorities, utility companies and the Department. However, individual loans from the National Housing Fund are available for families in the economic group who are able to acquire a residential plot themselves, and want to build a house on it.

It has been established that a large percentage of the breadwinners who have the greatest need to acquire residential plots, fall in the group earning below R4 000 and even slightly more per annum. Surveys show that 60 to 80 per cent of the White population in our largest cities were, until recent salary increases, earning below R4 000, and there is every indication that private developers of land cannot or will not make nearly adequate provision for that group. They are primarily concerned with selling building sites to the well-to-do, that is those with incomes in excess of approximately R4 000 per annum, who are calculated to represent only 20 to 25 per cent of the population. The duty to have plots available for the lesser privileged for the construction by them of houses on those plots, is and ought clearly to be the duty of the local authority upon whom the general duty of providing the inhabitants of its district with housing has been imposed by the Slums Act.

Since 60 to 80 per cent of our urban population cannot therefore be assisted in acquiring building sites by the private sector, the commission of inquiry into the prevailing high selling prices of vacant residential sites and unplanned land came to the conclusion that local authorities themselves should also be obliged, when necessary, to ensure that township development is embarked upon so that prospective housebuilders who fall under the economic group as indicated above, are provided with building sites, and also to ensure that adequate residential sites are always available to both the present as well as the future inhabitants of the service area of the local authority. The Government is in agreement with this view of the Commission, and hence this legislation, for provision of proper accommodation includes of course the provision of residential plots. Since the duty to ensure as well that residential plots are provided according to the requirements of the inhabitants is not specifically mentioned in the section, it is now being done, so that no doubts in this regard may in future be entertained. The necessary means to help local authorities ensure that sufficient land is obtained exists, for they can obtain loans for the financing of land transactions from the National Housing Fund.

Clause I of the Bill merely contains amendments which become necessary as a result of the name of the Department being changed, and therefore requires no explanation.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that this Bill flows from the recommendations of the Niemand Commission. It is really the first, what I might term, legislative bite at the cherry in so far as that Commission’s report is concerned. I think it is necessary that we should examine this just a little more closely, and I want to raise certain matters with the hon. the Minister, which I hope he will be able to deal with and to reply to.

The Bill before us is a simple one, the adding of a number of words only to the responsibilities of the municipalities. The hon. the Minister has referred to the responsibility of municipalities to provide housing for their inhabitants. If we look at this in the light of recent surveys, only 20 per cent of the population, approximately, can afford to become home owners; SO per cent of the population must be assisted either sub-economically or they must become tenants of letting units. The report of the Niemand Commission, to whose findings the hon. the Minister referred, is important and I think I should perhaps refer to some of the recommendations which have application to this Bill before us. On page 24, paragraph 5, the commission drew attention to the following fact—

The commission then went on to say—

If one turns to the recommendations on page 31 of this report, one finds that the commission says—

Hence this Bill before us today. It also says—

Sir, one can have no quarrel with this theoretical approach, or should I say the most desirable approach, that this township development should take place. But I think we must keep in mind that there are various problems which automatically arise and which will arise, for instance, in municipal and local authority areas under this particular Bill which is before us. One is to acquire land for residential purposes. Acquiring land for residential purposes inevitably means a capital investment; it means a tying up of capital for an indefinite period before that capital becomes revenue-producing. When one reviews the considerations given by various authorities to the Niemand Commission, one finds that first of all there is this difficulty of obtaining capital to acquire the necessary land. Secondly there is the question of the employment of private consultants for the development of townships by the local authorities as envisaged. These consultants are expensive. Thirdly, the local authorities would themselves have to extend their present staffs of highly trained and experienced township developers in order to supervise such work as might be done by private consultants. As far as the Cape is concerned, the problem, as in other provinces no doubt, is where the money is to come from to enable the local authorities to finance this acquisition of additional land. With it goes the corresponding responsibility that if residential property is to be made available, then there is the question of providing services. Residential lots without services are of no value for residential purposes. The hon. the Minister will be aware that on page 32, in paragraph 8, of the report, the Niemand Commission in fact dealt with this matter. The hon. the Minister has not as yet dealt with this question as to where this finance is to come from. The Niemand Commission said this—

I think that the local authorities are looking to the Government to see to what extent the Government is going to accept as a matter of principle that local authorites will be assisted financially in dealing with the costs involved in the provision of services to residential areas within the municipal areas. It is clear that the present Bill only deals with residential land in connection with slum clearance. Another problem which still exists, and one which is not quite clear, is that if a municipality desires to acquire land under this obligation which is placed upon it by this particular clause, is it correct that it can only exercise this power by expropriating within the terms of the Slums Act? In other words, does it mean that no land can be expropriated to provide this residential area unless the area is first declared a slum by a slums’s court in terms of the Slums Act? Can the Council, if National Housing funds are made available, use the provisions of the Housing Act for expropriation on a different basis and which does not need a slums’ court decision? Or is there under the Community Development Board a different aspect of expropriation?

Repeat that last question, please.

The question is how does the municipality come into possession of land which it wishes to acquire by expropriation to fulfill these obligations? There will be certain land which may be in a slum area and I take it that it will then be referred to the slums’ court. Then the slums’ court can issue a declaration whereby they declare that this is a slum area and that it therefore operates under section 17 of the Slums Act. Then expropriation procedure will follow. If on the other hand, there is a proclamation of group areas involved, I take it that the municipality can come to the Minister through the Community Development Board for assistance to acquire affected property to be used for another group for residential purposes.

Then there seems to be yet another alternative. That is to use the normal provisions of the Housing Act and to find funds out of housing funds in order to acquire property. In such a case the local authority will act in terms of the Housing Act in so far as it concerns expropriation or acquisition of property, I want to, if I may, refer the hon. the Minister to the fact that the Transvaal Municipal Association in dealing with this problem, was also faced with the question of how to carry out the responsibility which had been placed on it under this amendment. I want to refer to the report of January this year of the Transvaalse Vereniging van Munisipaliteite. I quote—

I refer to this because otherwise this measure, which we are discussing, becomes merely a pious enactment unless there is the opportunity to carry it out. If we do not have this, we may have the position that the municipalities may say that as far as circumstances permit they will do it, and when circumstances do not permit, they cannot get any residential land. I think it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister, apart from being the responsibility of the Government to show that circumstances can be created which will permit the acquisition of this land. I want to mention one final matter. I believe it is essential to remind the hon. the Minister about this matter. I am referring to the extreme difficulty at the present moment to find planning officers for town planning and regional planning. I just want to quote (he circumstances we have here in the Cape. I do not know what the position is in other areas, but regional planning was undertaken in the metropolitan areas in the Cape during 1966 to 1968. A very useful report was produced as a result of this regional planning. At that time there were three senior planning officials who possessed both local and overseas experience. They had six very able and energetic planning assistants who helped them in this work. Today not one of those officials is left in provincial employment. They have all disappeared into the private sector. When one thinks of local authorities having to compete with the private sector for the services of these people, one realizes what the financial implications are. This brings me to what I believe to be two further aspects of this matter which I want to leave with the hon. the Minister. Firstly, if this is not merely to be a pious piece of legislation, there are three things that appear to be necessary. In the first place, I believe that a White Paper should be issued in regard to the report of the Niemand Commission to get all the bits and pieces together. It is correct that the hon. the Minister on the 20th of October last year released a statement through the Department of Information indicating the Government’s decision in broad outline in regard to the Niemand Commission’s report. This statement was circularized, published in the press and also broadcast. I believe there should be a little more detail to tie up what is to be done so that when the legislation comes before this House, we will be able to see how it dovetails into a pattern giving effect to the approved recommendations of the Niemand Commission. Secondly, I believe that the financial aspect is an important one in regard to municipalities. To what extent is finance going to be made available, firstly for the acquisition of property, secondly for the planning and development of that property over a period of time and, thirdly, for the provision of services in any meaningful development of residential areas. Finally, I come to my third point, which I believe is a most important one and which is one to which the Niemand Commission also refers, namely that the approval of townships is still taking an inordinate time. It is still taking far too long and there are still far too many authorities and ministerial departments that have to be consulted before a township can be approved. That is a waste of money, it pushes up the cost of land and the red tape in this respect can be cut. While the hon. the Minister says that he is “bestest” let him see if he can achieve what others could not achieve over the years—I was almost going to say over the centuries—to cut the red tape connected with township approval and to get townships approved within a reasonable time so that the ultimate purchaser does not have to be loaded with a fantastic load of wasted money through delays. We will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in the last part of his speech the hon. member for Green Point asks for a White Paper on the Niemand Commission’s report. I have not given that any thought so far, but I would like to inform the hon. member that since the recommendations of the Niemand Commission were accepted by the Cabinet, Mr. Niemand has been given a staff to help him put these recommendations into practice. I think this was a very practical way of doing it, namely to ask the man who made such involved recommendations to carry them out. I must say that Mr. Niemand has been very busy with this work. The other day he informed me that he has now consulted with all the provincial authorities, the majority of the larger municipalities, with Sapoa and all the major township developers. He now knows about their viewpoints and he thinks that he will be in a position in a year or so to tell us exactly how far the recommendations of the Niemand Commission, including the aspect mentioned by the hon. member namely the long time taken for the approval of townships, which is really a very big handicap, can be practically implemented. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Green Point, although I do not want to tie myself down completely as I have to discuss the matter with Mr. Niemand and with the Cabinet, that after that a White Paper may be a necessity.

To give the whole picture.

Yes, and not only as far as the theory is concerned, but the whole picture as far as the practical implementation thereof is concerned. It will also deal with this question of the long time taken before townships are approved. As my hon. friend will know, I have really very little say in it. As a matter of fact when I was member of the Executive Committee in the Transvaal dealing with local authorities I had much more say in these matters. At that time however I was a member of the United Party and therefore could not do much good! I am, however, fully aware that this delay in the approval of townships is a very difficult problem. I do not think it is impossible to shorten the time in which they can be approved, but as regards the Niemand Commission and what is being done at the moment, we can come to a reasonable decision later on.

The most important point the hon. member made was the question as to where the capital was going to come from. This is not going to be just a pious piece of legislation—where is the capital going to come from to buy this land? Well, the capital can come from two sources, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech. Firstly it can come from the Housing Commission. Secondly, it can come from local funds as well. Thirdly, it can come from the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board is at the moment paying a considerable amount of attention to city and urban renewal. They are spending a substantial amount of money in that direction. I may just at a tangent say that we are now considering how far we can draw in private enterprise into this whole question of city renewal. I cannot say for certain, but I hope to make an announcement when my Vote comes under discussion.

I do not think this is only a pious piece of legislation. After all, in the Slums Act this responsibility of supplying houses for the people under their jurisdiction is put on the local authority. I think that actually includes getting more land. But now we find that the Act reads (more or less): “Where possible, they must supply housing for the people under their jurisdiction.” Then they say it is not possible, because they do not have the land. I do not think that is a genuine excuse. I think this piece of legislation makes it perfectly clear that the responsibility of the local authority goes further than to say that it must provide housing as far as passible; the responsibility is also put on it of getting that land, as the capital for getting that land is supplied by the Housing Fund. The Housing Fund has always been in a position to supply that capital. If it cannot supply that capital, of course it cannot; but so far we have found that it can supply the capital, and that capital is used. I wish to thank the hon. member for supporting this measure. I do not think there is much we can discuss in the Committee Stage. I think the principle is quite clear, and it is agreed on. It is a question of how it is going to be put into practice in the years that lie ahead. I always believe the hon. member when he says that we have such a good Minister of Community Development; I think we ought to make great advances in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before this House will, upon being passed, entail the disappareance from our law of the two well-known rules of law mentioned in clause I of the Bill which—as one of our juristic writers expressed it-are a legal institution which has been retained out of piety, but which ought to disappear and will not in doing so cause much sorrow. And in this regard it is probably women who will be particularly pleased, because they will probably see in this a further step in the process of the equalization of the legal status of man and woman, although the two rules of law are not a legal disability, but protective measures in favour of the woman.

However, there are probably those, too, who will take leave of these rules of law with a touch of nostalgia, for they speak to us of a far distant past.

By your leave, Sir, I want to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, Mr. L. le Grange, and all the other members of that Committee for the attention given by them to the investigation of this matter. It was their task, not only in the Jight of the evidence before the Committee, but also in the light of their practical knowledge and experience, to consider whether or not these old legal provisions, dating from Roman times, still have any right to continued existence in our law. I would have been delighted if the recommendations of the Committee had been unanimous, but, in view of the fact that other bodies have also from time to time differed in regard to this subject, it is understandable that there was a difference of opinion among the members of the Committee as well.

Now, Sir, the Senatus-consultum Velieianum dates, as is generally accepted, from the year A.D. 46, while the Authentica si qua muller dates from the year A.D. 556. Caney, on page 163 of is book, “The Law of Suretyship", briefly states the reasons for these legal provisions, as follows—

As regards the first reason mentioned by the learned writer for the acceptance of the legal provisions, it is rather unlikely that it could be said in the light of modern circumstances that suretyship is man’s work only. In fact, stronger dividing lines than these between what is men’s work and what is women’s work have already disappeared from our law and from practice. As regards the second reason advanced by the writer, and by others as well, which points to an inherent weakness in women, whether real or supposed, one of our best-known jurists, Sir John Wessels, said the following in a much quoted paragraph in his best-known work, “Law of Contract”, in paragraph 3872—

Ten, too, Sir, I want to refer to the judgment of the equally well-known Mr. Justice Toon van den Heever, in Van Rensburg v. Minnie, 1942 O.P.D., page 257 where, in regard to these rules of law, the following was said-

Apart from what the learned jurists to whom I have just referred had to say about this matter, it has for many years now been strongly urged from various other quarters that these rules of law be abolished. In 1968, as a result of a motion in the Other Place, I undertook to refer the matter once again to the Law Revision Committee for consideration, in spite of the fact that that Committee had previously considered the matter on various occasions but had been unable to reach unanimity regarding it. I requested that the Committee should consider as an alternative to abolition, if it was in favour of the retention of these grounds for defence, whether it was not desirable that these grounds for defence should be limited only to suretyship and that it should only be possible for a woman to renounce the protection afforded her by these grounds for defence by way of a notarial deed.

The Law Revision Committee then nominated a sub-committee from among its own number to investigate the possibility of making suretyships in general more difficult, or to making the protection afforded by these rules of law more effective. This subcommittee recommended unanimously to the Law Revision Committee that the rules of law in question be abolished.

The Law Revision Committee then also recommended, by majority resolution, the abolition of these rules of law, I think that, according to the evidence, the Law Revision Committee recommended abolition by nine votes to six.

Now, Sir, it would seem that the strongest objections to the Senatus-consultum, and the Autheniica is that the protection these are supposed to afford women is to a large degree illusory, principally on the grounds that a woman may renounce the privileges arising out of these provisions. In addition we also have in our law examples where these provisions do not apply.

If we go into the history of the Senatus-consultum and the Authentica, we find that even in Roman times these measures had begun to lose their effective force. Admittedly the character of the provisions has retained their objective to protect women, but the scope of the protection was already diminished by Justinian, to such an extent that he subsequently found it necessary, in the case of the married woman, to make suretyship for their husbands completely valueless.

As far as the evidence before the Select Committee is concerned, I am not going to dilate on that. It is accessible to hon. members. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the abolition of the said rules of law.

As I said previously, women in particular will probably welcome the Bill. It appears from the report of the commission of inquiry into the legal disabilities of women, which was published in 1949, that almost all the women’s organizations which made representations to the commission advocated the abolition of the protection afforded by these rules of law. On this occasion, too, women’s organizations expressed themselves in favour of the Bill. Our women are therefore prepared. Sir, to renounce the protection afforded them up to now in terms of these two rules of law, and consequently I must accept that they are prepared to take upon themselves the same responsibility as the man in regard to the matters with which these rules of law are concerned. Consequently I believe that, as in other spheres, they will be able to hold their own.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] … it never ceases to amuse me that when a woman rises to sponsor a cause of this kind, it is so often assumed that she is going to be either provocative or emotional about it, or possibly both. I do not intend to be either provocative or emotional in this instance. There is nothing to be emotional about. The Bill before us today is a practical one, so that nobody need have any anxieties on that score. It is a very practical measure, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, dealing with one very salient practical fact, namely that although these two forms of suretyship protection may have been necessary and sound in the past, they very definitely no longer are so. They are no longer necessary for two main reasons. Firstly, the majority of women are emancipated enough not to require them, and secondly, the protection which they afforded could always be signed away by a notarial deed, which has proved a very cumbersome and expensive procedure and which has often caused great inconvenience to the parties concerned.

The hon. the Minister quite correctly slated that the women of South Africa have been working against these antique suretyship provisions for many years, and since they are about to be repealed, I think a brief historical survey, if only for the record in this House, would not be out of place. As the law stands, a woman who has elected to stand as a guarantor for anyone can, if the creditor wishes to enforce the guarantee against her, in the first place claim the benefit of the two provisions under discussion, namely the Authentica si qua muller and the Senatus-consultum Velleianum, both of which date from Roman times, as the hon. the Minister stated. Secondly, these two forms of protection mean that the obligation she has undertaken by standing surety, becomes unenforceable against her. A woman can, of course, as hon. members know, expressly waive or renounce this form of protection and then the guarantee becomes enforceable. In practice banks and all business institutions invariably obtain from the woman concerned a renunciation of these benefits by means of a notarial deed, which is a very expensive and cumbersome process. This is usually done when she is providing security for an overdraft for someone else or when overdraft facilities are being granted to her. The hon. the Minister is perfectly correct in stating that women today consider that any equality accorded to them in the sphere of contractual capacity should also involve the removal of this out-dated and dubious form of protection, which is in any case usually waived. The women’s organizations take the view, as they have for many years, that if we are granted equality before the law in this way, we must also be prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with it.

I should like to give a brief analysis of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on this Bill. 95 per cent of those who submitted memoranda to the Select Committee were in full agreement with the terms of the Bill under discussion today. Very briefly I want to tell hon. members about this. I shall deal with the universities first. The staff members of the Law School of the Witwatersrand University stated that they were very happy about the drafting of this Bill. Pretoria University’s law faculty expressed full approval ”omdat die middels nie meer hul doel in die moderne tyd en soos die reg ontwik kel het, bereik nie”. For the benefit of the House, Sir, I think I must also quote the brief comment submitted to the Select Committee by the law faculty of the University of Potchefstroom.

Hear, hear!

Yes, “hear, hear”! I agree. This was the comment of the head of the Department of Criminal Law of the University of Potchefstroom—

Full marks to Potchefstroom! As far as the other universities are concerned, Stellenbosch Law School appeared to be divided. Cape Town and Natal made no reply. The Orange Free State was far too conservative or scared to make any comment at all, and the Randse Afrikaan.se Universiteit also omitted to comment. Where the Provincial Administrations are concerned there was no comment from the Free State, from South-West Africa or from the Transvaal. Only the Cape sent in a note saying that they had no objection to the terms of the Bill, and the United Municipal Executive said that they had no objection either.

Then, when we come to the business organizations, their approval was almost total. In fact, it was total. The Inter-bank Technical Committee, which approved without any reservations of this measure, was representative of the Standard Bank, Volkskas, the Netherlands Bank, Barclays, Trust Bank, the French Bank of Southern Africa Ltd., the S.A. Bank of Athens, the Bank of Lisbon and the First National City Bank of New York. They were all completely in favour of the Bill, and so were the Land Bank, the Insurance Council of South Africa, the Life Offices Association of Southern Africa and the Association of Building Societies of South Africa. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, after circulating the Bill to all its members, sent in a memo randum expressing unanimous approval for the Bill. So did the Federated Chambers of Industries, the Association of Trust Companies of South Africa, and Credcor Bank.

So you will see, Sir, that the weight of evidence in the field of business was very much in favour of the Bill. The Chief Registrar of Deeds expressed reservations, and in fact what might be described as disapproval of the Bill. In one brief paragraph he says—

I submit, with respect, that the Chief Registrar of Deeds in that one sentence defeats his own belief in what is more of a sentiment than a principle.

In regard to the women’s organizations, I will not go into any details, except to say, as the hon. the Minister correctly stated, that all the women's associations who sent in memoranda to the Select Committee were without reservations in favour of these two provisions being repealed. The Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging, and Die Christelike Vrouevereniging were also asked for their views, apart from the English-speaking women’s organizations, but did not reply. In any case, Mr. Speaker, they were not opposed to the Bill, and I think that we are fairly safe in this House in assuming that their silence can be construed as agreement. But perhaps the most telling evidence presented to the Select Committee in general was the evidence given by the Association of Law Societies of South Africa. It is a very short paragraph, and for the sake of the record I would like to quote it—

That was signed by the Secretary-General of the Association of Law Societies of South Africa. Now there is no need for me to remind the House, first of all, that the Association of Law Societies, is representative of the whole of the legal profession in the sense that it is representative of all the attorneys and that all of those involved are people whom you might say are the only parties who stand to gain anything, to put it on that basis, in the way of fees for the drawing up of notarial deeds renouncing these benefits. As a highly thought of body they are quite unlikely to have found it necessary to recommend the abolition of these surety provisions without considerable care and thought.

Now we received two memoranda against the terms of this Bill. The one was from Mr. Justice Caney, who is the legal expert on the taw of surety, and the other one was from the S.A. Agricultural Union. I must say that both these two memoranda were extremely well motivated. The basis of their motivation was, firstly, that women tend to be too kind-hearted and sentimental when it comes to assisting others and can easily be embarrassed financially as a result and, secondly, they made the point that those who were married in community of property might be ignorant of the taw and ignorant of the consequences of the limitations of their own rights in law.

That, Sir, is briefly an analysis of the evidence that was placed before us. We were very grateful on the Select Committee to the Assistant-Secretary for Justice who presented an initial document to us. I do not want to go into very great detail; the hon. the Minister in fact referred to the Commission on Women’s Legal Disabilities which sat in 1949 and which discussed this matter at great length. The hon. the Minister quoted from Sir John Wessels, who was Chief Justice of the Union. May I say that the Minister quoted Sir John Wessels' comment, suggesting that it was really ridiculous in terms of modem life that these provisions should continue and went on to say that Henry IV had repealed them in France in 1606. The hon. the Minister, in quoting Sir John Wessels, who was also quoted at the sittings of the Commission on Women’s Legal Disabilities in 1949, omitted to mention that Sir John Wessels made that comment about its being incongruous that women should be treated in this way as far back as 1916.

Sir, when it came to the recommendations of the Commission on Women’s Legal Disabilities in 1949, the members of that commission were divided and made no recommendations as a commission as to what should happen about these two suretyship provisions. Mr. Justice Caney in his book, “The Law of Surety”, was quoted by the hon. the Minister here this afternoon and so was Mr. Justice Van den Heever. Although Mr. Van den Heever was in favour of the abolition of these two provisions, Mr. Justice Caney was not. Mr. Justice Caney’s view was that in fact we were liable to be taken for a ride by anybody who was unscrupulous in this regard and that therefore these provisions should remain. The interesting thing. Sir, is that it was in 1949 that this commission sat, and one year later, in 1950, the matter came before the Law Revision Committee, which came to the unanimous decision that both provisions should be repealed forthwith.

However, our Law Revision Committee seems to have changed its personnel considerably since 1950; I think they must have been more enlightened in those days, with respect to the hon. gentlemen. However, no action was taken as a result of their unanimous decision that these provisions should be repealed. In 1959, nine years later, the subject again came before the Law Revision Committee, and on that occasion they decided not to make a recommendation of any kind. All the legal pundits took the view in their wisdom that as the two provisions under discussion had existed for so long, the onus of making out a valid case for their removal rested on those most affected, in other words the women themselves. I submit, Sir, that such a valid case has now been made out quite clearly by business people, by the legal people, by the women’s organizations and by the Select Committee itself in dealing with this Bill.

I want to show hon. members how long it took before anything was achieved in this field. In doing so, I want to refer again to the Law Revision Committee. In 1962 the matter was referred to the Law Revision Committee for the third time. Then the chairman who was Chief Justice of the Union reported to the hon. the Minister of Justice. There was a sort of total silence for some strange reason after that particular consideration in 1962.

For the purpose of the record, I should like to say something about a little piece of history which, I regret, was not reported by the Assistant Secretary for Justice in his summary presented to the Select Committee. Early in 1964 l had the privilege of leading a deputation of representatives of women's organizations in South Africa including the two hon. lady members of the Senate at that time, to interview the hon. the Minister of Justice who is now our Prime Minister. One of the matters which we specifically asked him to deal with, were these two surety provisions. The then hon. minister of Justice, gave us the assurance that he would do what every other Minister has done before, namely refer the matter to the Law Revision Committee. So we sighed heavily and went home.

In 1965 the Law Revision Committee again considered the matter. It has been considered by them so often that it becomes tedious. This time they decided “dat daar nic voldoende redes vir die afskaffing van hierdie regsreels hestaan nie”. This is after they decided unanimously in 1950 that it was time they were repealed.

However, there is another gap in the historical survey by the Assistant Secretary for Juistice, admirable as his memorandum is. In his memorandum he jumps straight from 1965 to 1968. I should like to remind hon. members here that I myself was responsible for the presentation of a private member’s Rill on 8th October, 1965. This was published in the Government Gazette and circulated to all members in this House. The rubric to clause 2 of this Bill read as follows—

Clause 2 read as follows—

This is clause 2 of my private draft Bill of 1965. I was never given the opportunity of debating this Bill in this House. There was one other provision in this Bill which, as the hon. the Minister knows, was taken over the following year by his predecessor and incorporated in the Matrimonial Affairs Amendment Bill about women having the right, married in or out of community of property, to open and run banking accounts without the supervision or permission of their husbands. He had the grace to take that clause over, but he left clause 2 out. I recorded my regret at the time. Therefore, hon. members can imagine how pleased I am today that this provision which I asked should be handled in this manner in 1965, has now been accepted by the hon. the Minister and is to become part of our law.

The Law Revision Committee is at last to be commended for having in 1968, taken the step of appointing this sub-committee of which prof. Hahlo, the existing authority on “The Law of Husband and Wife”, Mr. Justice Muller and one other member of the Side Bar served. As a result of their recommendation in 1970 we have this Bill in front of us today.

I want to conclude by saying that the Afrikaans saying “aanhouer wen” applies in this case. It is interesting to note that since Henry IV abolished these antique provisions from the French legal system in 1606, it has taken us 353 years to get round to it. At last we are doing it here this afternoon. I would like to say that under normal circumstances one would raise one’s hand and cry “Excelsior!” but of course that might be considered in bad taste in South Africa at the present time. Therefore, I do not propose to do so here. Before I conclude, there may still be some people, and I suspect that there are, in this country and particularly legal people who will shake their heads sadly at the passing of these provisions. I believe that there are people who wonder very anxiously how such legal emancipation will affect us and our claims for protection. I just want to remind this hon. House on a rather flippant note, if I may, of how very worried everybody was here in 1930 when the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill was discussed. The arguments were put up that the most terrible things would happen to the country if women were given the vote. I just want to quote three very short sentences to show what was said in this House on that occasion.

I hope that they will all be relevant.

They are extremely relevant, Sir. In Hansard of the 6th March. 1930, Genl. Kemp, the Minister of Agriculture, said:

Mr. Harm Oost was worried about what would happen in this country. He was a man of political fame in this country and he said:

The hon. the Minister made the point in his speech that women had become sufficiently sophisticated to handle these matters. During the 1930 debate hon. members of this House had severe doubts about this. Mr. Moll was recorded as saying:

He went on to say:

I am sorry to end on a flippant note, but the last of the speakers in this debate was Mr. Visser from Senekal. He stated:

Mr. Alberts, the then hon. member for Magaliesberg, made the final statement when he said:

Order! I hope that is the last quotation!

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the last quotation. In that debate one of the hon. members on this side of the House ended off by saying: “The man is mad!” On that basis, and having the fears of hon. members, I would like to end by thanking the hon. the Minister for having introduced this Bill. I want to tell him that without doubt this will have the approval and the very happy approval of all the women voters and the women’s organizations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, every time I walk past the gold pen in the gallery hall, the pen with which that specific Act was signed by the then Governor-General, I wonder to myself which of the two sides in that debate was right and which was wrong. This Bill is probably one of the shortest which has been before this hon. House in a long time. What is of particular importance here, is clause 1. On the face of it it merely means that these two specific rules of law are being abolished. It does not seem to be of much importance, and one could dispose of it in five minutes and ask the House to approve this measure, particularly when seen in the light of the recommendations placed before this House by the hon. the Minister of Justice. However, I should like to elaborate a little on the two provisions in question.

The first legislation in this connection, as has already been mentioned, was in the time of Emperor Augustine and Emperor Claudius. Therein it was laid down that wives may not stand surety for their husbands. In later years, as the hon. the Minister indicated, it was laid down in 46 A.D. that women may not stand surety at all. This was known as the Senatus-consultum Velleianum. This, too, was subsequently regarded as not being drastic enough and it was then provided by the Authentica si qua mulier introduced in the time of Justinian that a wife could not even sign surety for her husband and that it would in such a case have no value. These exceptions were subsequently incorporated in the Dutch Law and from thence it was transferred to our law, except that in the Dutch Law the provisos were added that a woman could renounce these two exceptions. In such a case she had to sign the renunciation before a notary, The provisions in this connection were regarded as being so important that all the consequences thereof had to be explained to her, and she had to confirm that she understood them and that she was satisfied with them. In the old days a notary was a person of such integrity and importance that his office may he compared to our present-day judge’s office. That was why these provisions read as they did. It has already been mentioned that in other countries, in France for example in 1606, this provision was abolished by way of legislation, and that it was also not universally applicable in the provinces of the Netherlands. The general impression which exists among our public is that a woman may not sign surety unless she renounces these protective measures, and that that is now the fixed rule. That is in fact not the case. There are various exceptions to this rule which are many years old and for the sake of interest I should just like to mention a few of them. A woman may renounce these exceptions. However, if she has stood surety for her husband, she is held liable if she has renounced only the one exception, i.e. the one which states that she may not sign surety for her husband. If she has not renounced the other exception as well, she is still liable. Where she enters into an agreement for her own benefit and interest, and not only with the object of paying another person’s debt, she is also responsible and liable under her suretyship. This happens for example where she enters into an agreement for the discharge of her husband's estate from a sequestration order. Another case where a woman is in fact held liable for her suretyship is where she signs surety for a person who is a creditor in respect of her. Then she is, under such suretyship, only liable to the amount of her own debt to such a creditor. There are other cases as well where she, by means of a fraudulent action towards a creditor, brings such creditor under the impression that she is contracting in her own interest. Where she carries on a public trade and enters into a suretyship in the ordinary course of her business, she is not covered by the protective measures either. In addition, if a woman were for example to sign surety for a person without complying with the provisions of the law and she were to confirm the suretyship two years later, she is bound to that as if she had accepted the liability directly. If a woman should sign surety for a creditor who is being held liable by a minor and that creditor cannot pay his debt, that woman is liable for that suretyship because the interests of the minor are regarded as being of greater importance than her own. But this is not the first provision of our statutory law which relates to this matter. I just want to mention to you three provisions in our statutory law which relate to this matter. In section 20 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1964 (Act No. 34 of 1964) it is provided that it is not necessary for a woman to renounce the exceptions when she is the acceptant or indorser of a bill, or when in terms of the provisions of section 93 (2) of the Act she is the maker or indorser of a promissory note. There are further statutory provisions, for example the Building Societies Act of 1965 (Act No. 24 of 1965). Section 68 (3) provides that a woman is deemed to have renounced these two protective measures when she borrows money from a building society or stands surety for any person, or when she assumes responsibility for the payment of the debt of any person to such building society. One finds a similar provision in section 50bis of the Land Bank Act of 1944 (Act No. 13 of 1944).

This watering-down of the protective measures has been in progress for many years in out law, both in common law and also in our statutory law. The hon. the Minister referred to certain judgments and standpoints which have already been passed and adopted by various judges, on our bench as well. I do not want to occupy any more of your time with this matter, Sir, but it is interesting to glance at the report of the commission on the legal disabilities of women of 1940. It is rather interesting to note that one of the leading members of that commission was Mrs. Bertha Solomon, whose opinion in these matters one must certainly take seriously. She was in favour of the abolition of these exceptions even at the time of the sitting of that commission. According to paragraph 202 of the commission’s report it was very clearly stated that almost all the women’s organizations who made representations were in favour of the abolition. I went through lists of persons or bodies who made representations to that commission. There were 103 persons or bodies who made written representations. Among them there were 43 women’s organizations or women in their personal capacity. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that if one goes through the detailed list, one will And that it really does represent all bodies of importance in South Africa that have the interests of women at heart. There were 177 witnesses, and 136 of them were women. The vast majority of these people felt, even at that time, that these provisions should be abolished. That is why one is really amazed that the members of the commission were then divided 3/3 in their opinions and for that reason did not arrive at a specific resolution in this regard. That I really cannot understand, if one considers the preponderance of evidence before the commission.

But then the matter took another turn. The hon. member for Wynberg has already referred in detail to the attempts of the Law Revision Committee over the past approximately 20 years to reach a decision in this matter. However, it is interesting to note that in 1950, when the Law Revision Committee decided unanimously that the protective measures should be abolished, they said the following (translation)—

The Committee went on to say—

The recommendation in paragraph 42 was that a contract of suretyship, as in the case of a donation—I quote further—“is usually-renounce the protection afforded them in a disinterested contract of unilateral engagement and the Committee is of the opinion that, just as in the case of a contract of donation, it ought to be provided that no contract of suretyship is valid unless the provisions thereof are embodied in a written document signed by the guarantor.” Out of that arose section 6 of the 1956 Act which provided that no surety was valid unless it was in writing and had been signed. But despite that the matter was brought before the Law Revision Committee again in 1959, as well as in 1962 and in 1965. In 1965 the Law Revision Committee even went so far as to say that there was insufficient reason for abolition and that if anything, it should be made even more effective. With all due respect, I must say that it is sometimes difficult to understand these decisions. Fortunately, after the decision made by the hon. the Minister and after the discussion in the Senate in 1968, this matter was again referred to the Law Revision Committee and after the subcommittee had submitted a recommendation to them, the Law Revision Committee then decided by nine votes to six that these provisions should be abolished. It is interesting to observe of the consideration which persuaded the sub-committee to make its recommendation. These considerations were the following—

1. (a) The protection is largely illusory. It does not deter women from entering into suretyships. The claim of not being bound is seldom raised, except by unscrupulous women when their husbands become insolvent
2. (b) The question of the effectiveness of suretyships only arises in the case of sprinsters above 21 and women married out of community of property.
3. (c) Today women are on the whole as well educated as their men and they participate to an increasing extent in commercial life. They are, generally speaking, able to look after themselves. This does not of course apply to the non-European population, where the general level of education of both is low. The sub-committee unanimously recommends that the benefits of the Senatus-consultum Velleianum and the Authentica si qua muller be abolished.

It is interesting to note that the sub-committee came forward with this recommendation after the preceding course of events over a period of approximately 12 years. The Select Committee which also examined this Bill, also called for evidence and again, as the hon. member for Wynberg indicated, it was the women's organizations that reacted to Our invitation to submit evidence. All were in favour of the abolition of these protective measures, protective measures which are actually applicable to the woman herself. It is also significant that the banks, through the Inter-bank Technical Committee which represents most of the commercial banks, all said that they were unanimous in their recommendation that these protective measures he abolished. Pondering this matter, one must admit that women today are as capable and as academically equipped as men in present-day society. Apart from that, advice is reasonably easily available to them all today, from persons on the Bar or the Side-Bar, and also from insurance companies and brokers, Bank managers and others. This is an important consideration in deciding whether these legal instruments should remain on our Statute Book. Another reason why these legal instruments are no longer of so much importance, is inheritance in terms of our testamentary law. Today It is virtually the rule that wills stipulate that an estate shall pass by inheritance when the man dies. The woman no longer remains behind as trustee, but inherits what she is entitled to at that stage. In addition the estate passes, under inheritance, to the heirs, as was done in pervious years on the death of the surviving spouse. This is an extremely important factor in considering the question as to whether these legal instruments should remain on our Statute Book. We in South Africa are of course very conservative when it comes to the application of our law and when we have to effect amendments to our legal system. Despite that I still think that we are quite correct here in abolishing these two legal instruments. I am convinced that we are in this way improving our law, and for that reason I support this legislation.

The cooing and billing this afternoon in this debate is, I think, exemplary of the gallantry of the modern South African male, as distinct, obviously, from the male of 1930 vintage, and I think one is grateful to the hon. member for Wynberg for drawing our attention to this great change which has taken place. I am sure the women of our country who enjoy the franchise and who discharge it so ably will be all the more impressed by the action we are taking today. It is of interest to note that not only did those women’s organizations which responded support the abolition of these protective rights, but other women’s organizations of note in this country to whom requests were addressed to give evidence or to place memoranda before the Select Committee, refrained from doing so, or from making any comment whatsoever. One must accept that the issue could not have been of such burning importance in so far as any objections to its abolition were concerned when one finds that there was no response from those organizations at all. The other organizations supported it wholeheartedly. But I think one must also not lose sight of the fact that whilst lawyers are most conservative in any change in regard to the principles of our law, and particularly principles of very long standing, in this particular issue the Association of Law Societies were completely for the abolition of these protections. The association of course is an organization which encompasses all the law societies of the various provinces and that of South-West Africa, and so they are a fully representative body of legal opinion in this country. Therefore their evidence weighs very strongly. By and large one was obliged as legal men to approach the evidence placed before the Select Committee as objectively as possible, particularly because of this inherent conservatism of the legal mind. The evidence, as has been pointed out, was overhwelmingly in favour of the abolition. It seems to follow the trend, not only here but also in other parts of the world, that many of these archaic principles or provisions of law which have come down over the centuries have in this modern day proved to be not necessarily useless but abrogated by disuse. That is what I think the women of the country felt when they asked for the abolition of this provision, and that is why the hon. member for Wynberg pleaded so sincerely and so strongly that it should be abolished. It is perhaps interesting to note that there have always been differences of opinion within the Law Revision Committee. But I think if one examines carefully the trend of the Law Revision Committee, one will find that in fact the preponderance of thinking was in favour of the abolition. Although decisions for, and in one case against, were taken, and although there was division of opinion on other occasions, no practical steps were taken. But as recently as last year the Law Revision Committee came to the conclusion, albeit with a majority vote, that the time had come for the abolition of these protections. It is also significant to note that the hon. the Minister of Justice, in presenting this Bill, and himself a lawyer, drew attention to the most salient factors which were placed before the commission and of which we must take note. I regard the opinion of Sir John Wessels and of Mr. Justice Van den Heever as being of great importance. I regard the manner in which their views were presented, as being of great importance.

It is interesting to note that South Africa, with its system of Roman Dutch Law, is the only country in the world today that has this form of protection. I believe that this protection has been used mainly in connection with mortgage bonds where women borrow money and are called upon to secure the repayment of mortgage bonds registered over their property. To avoid the possibility of part of that money being used to assist the husband, or possibly even some other person, it has become common practice, despite the fact that the repayment of the bond is an obligation which the woman herself has undertaken for her own benefit, to ask her to renounce these particular provisions in order to ensure that she will have no defence if there is any difficulty with regard to the repayment of the bond. I think the hon. member for Wynberg is correct in saying that the women of this country and of this modern age are sufficiently sophisticated and sufficiently aware of their contractual rights and obligations not to require this type of protection. It is interesting, Sir, to note that one of the memoranda submitted came from Mr. Justice Caney, who has written the only authoritative book on the subject. This is what he says—

It would appear, Sir, from what I have gathered from the womenfolk of this country, that they resent this form of comparison and that they would prefer to have it believed that while their hearts are good, they understand the requirements of modern society and that they do not require protection. I, too, support this measure.

I want to thank hon. members for the particular measure of unanimity in regard to this measure. The subject has been fully discussed; there is very little anyone could add, but what did in fact become clear to me from the debate is how wise it is to refer legislation, when one intends repealing existing legal principles, to a Select Committee. We did it in this case, with very good results. We also did it in regard to another subject, viz. the apportionment of damages. I have not yet seen the report of that committee, but I think that we have, to good effect in this case as well, referred this matter to a committee. It is also a good thing that we have the cooperation of both sides of the House in regard to legislation of this nature. Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg is to a large extent claiming for herself the kudos for this Bill; it is true that she pleaded for it. My contribution to this was, of course, made in the Other Place, as I said in the Second Reading speech. I just want to inform the hon. member for Wynberg, since she is so satisfied with this piece of legislation, that she must please not come forward with the request, as she did on a previous occasion, that I should grant women equal rights of guardianship. I shall not be able to accommodate her. Nor shall I be able to recommend this matter to a Select Committee; I will not even be able to refer it to the Law Revision Committee.

Sir, once again I want to convey my sincere gratitude to the members of the Select Committee and hon. members on both sides of the House for their co-operation in regard to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act, No. 100 of 1967, was put into effect on 16th February, 1968, and the board that was established in terms of that Act began functioning shortly afterwards. The object of the Act is the promotion of the marketing of canned fruit on overseas markets.

In pursuance of the objects of the Act the South African Canned Fruit Export Board found, in the course of time, that certain amendments to the Act would facilitate the implementation of its task.

Firstly it was found that close liaison with the producers of canned fruit was of great value to the board. For this reason it decided to invite observers of the former Canning Apricot and Peach Board and the present Canning Fruit Board to its meetings. The Canners’ Association, however, has full representation on the Canning Fruit Board, and consequently felt that the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act should be suitably amended to also give the producers of canned fruit full representation on the South African Canned Fruit Export Board. The producers of canned fruit would welcome such a step.

The South African Canned Fruit Export Board at present consists of five members. For every one of these members a substitute was also nominated who, in practice, always attends the board meetings with the members of the board. It was found that in this way, at the board’s meetings, a more representative opinion could be obtained about matters of interests to the canning industry. The Canners’ Association consequently requested that the five members, at present serving as substitutes on the board, should also be appointed as full members of the board.

These suggestions by the Canners’ Association for the amendment of the board’s composition, will undoubtedly help to strengthen the board as a body exercising control over the export marketing of canned fruits, in that a wider cross-section of the canning industry will be directly involved in the board’s decisions, and the producers of canned fruit will also be linked up. The amendment in clause I of the Bill is consequently aimed at implementing the requests of the Canners’ Association.

Secondly, the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act provides at present that the board’s financial year shall end on the 31st day of October of each year. This date was included in the original legislation because it coincided with the end of the canning season. The board’s function, however, is more closely connected with the marketing year of canned fruit, which coincides with the calender year. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore now amends the Act to provide that the hoard’s financial year will end on the 31st day of December of each year.

Thirdly, the present Act prohibits the exporting of canned fruit, except by authority of a licence issued by the Minister on the recommendation of the board, to countries stipulated by the Minister by notification in the Gazette. The legal provision in its present form, however, does not prohibit the offering of canned fruit in the particular countries. Offering is therefore sometimes done by unlicenced persons on the controlled market according to conditions that do not coincide with those prescribed by the board. Such offering jeopardizes the board’s efforts to arrange the export marketing of canned fruit on the most beneficial basis for South African canners. It is therefore in the interests of the canning industry that the Act he amended such that offers by unlicenced exporters for the sale of canned fruit, in the countries determined by the Minister, shall also be prohibited. Clause 3 of the Bill contains the proposed amendments of section 8 of the Act with a view to making provision for this.

Fourthly, no fees are at present payable for obtaining licences for the exporting of canned fruit to the countries that are determined by the Minister. All licenced persons, however, receive from the board a continuous stream of information in connection with the export marketing of canned fruit. The costs of the collection and distribution of this information is at present covered exclusively by the levy the board imposes on canned fruit that is exported. There are, however, quite a number of licenced individuals who export very little canned fruit and therefore obtain the information, which the board distributes, virtually for nothing. In fact, it is the board’s opinion that quite a number of these licenced individuals apply for licences solely in order to obtain the information, which the board distributes, for their organizations or for other local of overseas undertakings that have an interest in the exporting of canned fruit. This problem can be overcome by collecting licence fees that will at least cover the costs of collecting and distributing the information. In order to be able to change this amount from time to time, section 8 of the Act is also being amended to empower the Minister to prescribe fees, that can vary as the Minister, on the recommendation of the board, may decide, in respect of the issueing of the licences, fees which are, however, repayable if an application for a licence is refused.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is in the main an administrative measure. Its provisions can be divided under four main headings. It provides for an increase in the number of members on the board. It alters the end of the financial year. It provides for the licensing not only of persons who are concerned with the manufacture of canned fruit, but also of persons who offer canned fruit, the object being to control not only the manufacturers, but also those who offer fruit for the export market. Finally, it extends the operation of this measure to South-West Africa. It is all part of the system of ensuring that only quality goods are sent overseas and that there is adequate control Over goods that are exported. We therefore support the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now under discussion is meant to replace the existing Newspaper and Imprint Act of 1934 (Act No. 14 of 1934). The provisions of this Act came into operation on 1st April, 1934, and have not been amended since. Adjustments with a view to streamlining administrative procedures in regard to the registration of newspapers and imprints have now become necessary. Rather than move a large number of amendments, it is considered preferable to replace the existing Act in order to cast it in the form of our present-day Acts and at the same time to effect linguistic and other amendments that have become necessary.

As indicated by the long title of the present Act, its object is to consolidate and amend the pre-Union laws and ordinances relating to newspapers and other printed matter, and it is designed to ensure the orderly functioning of the newspaper and printing industry and to expand that industry, to protect publishers and printers against one another, and to make it possible to determine the responsibility for the publication of newspapers and printed matter.

The first legislation in our country which contained provisions similar to those in the present Act, was embodied in Ordinance No. 60 of 1829 of the Cape Province and it is interesting to note that the Ordinance was called the “Ordinance for preventing the mischiefs arising from printing and publishing newspapers and papers of a like nature by persons unknown.” That Ordinance already provided that the names and addresses of the publishers and printers were to appear in the newspapers concerned. It was replaced by Act No. 8 of 1859, which in turn was supplemented by Act No. 28 of 1884, which provided that certain particulars of newspapers had to be registered. Similar provisions existed in Natal in terms of Act No. 9 of 1858, but the legislature there went further and stipulated that a prospective publisher or printer had to deposit R200 as security in case he contravened the provisions of the Act. In the Transvaal this matter was regulated by Ordinance No. 49 of 1902, which provided in very clear terms that newspapers had to be registered so that, inter alia, any person who had been prejudiced by any newspaper might know whom to hold responsible. It would therefore appear that as far as the registration of newspapers and imprints is concerned, it may be rightly said that “there is nothing new under the sun”.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, the principal objects of the existing Act also include the following—

1. (a) In respect of newspapers —
2. (i) to identify newspapers and their proprietors, publishers and printers;
3. (ii) to prevent duplication of or close resemblance between the names of newspapers; and
4. (iii) to ensure that the responsible editor of any newspaper published in this country, is resident in South Africa.
5. (b) In respect of printed matter (other than newspapers)—
6. (i) to identify the printer (full name and address of the printer or a registered abbreviation thereof); and
7. (ii) to prevent the use of a registered abbreviation (where applicable) by any other person.

As has been indicated, the object of the Act may therefore be said to be to protect the interests of the newspaper and printing industry and to ensure that the State has at its disposal the particulars required to exercise its function of control in this regard over newspapers and printed matter that is published. The existing Act is obsolete, and it has now become necessary to overhaul it and to effect essential amendments.

*Mr. Speaker, the main changes incorporated in the existing Act are the following. For the sake of convenience I shall deal with each separate clause briefly and give an indication of the relevant sections in_ which the present provisions are contained.

Clause 1 (section 12):

The existing definitions of “Minister”, “newspaper”, “printed matter” and “printer” are being overhauled and the definitions are being supplemented by the definition of “registered”, to provide that it means in terms of the Bill; “this Act”, so that it would include the proposed regulations as well; “Republic”, in order to include South-West Africa as well; “Secretary”, which will mean the Secretary for the Interior; and “prescribed”, so that certain obligations and administrative procedures may be prescribed by regulation.

Clause 2 (section 1):

This contains the provision relating to prohibition and is merely an adjustment and improvement of the old text.

Clause 3 (section 2):

The change this clause will effect is that an application for registering a newspaper must be lodged with the Secretary instead of with the Minister—an administrative arrangement which is already being applied at present. Furthermore, the particulars to be formulated, the form to be used and the fee payable, will now have to be prescribed in terms of this clause. It is not being envisaged to extend the particulars at present specified in section 2, but to define clearly the procedures to be followed in registration and possibly to increase the amount of R2 at present stipulated in section 2 (3), to a more realistic amount.

Clause 4 (section 3):

At present this section provides that the particulars must be entered in a register. This entails unnecessary work, since all the particulars are already contained in the files concerned. The keeping of separate registers will therefore be eliminated. Furthermore, provision is being made for the fee payable for a copy of the registered information to be prescribed. Apart from that, only the necessary adjustments and improvement of the wording in the clause are being made.

Clause 5 (section 4):

This clause deals with changes in the registered particulars. It contains the provisions of the existing section of the Act, but provides that the way in which notification of change in particulars must be given, as well as the fees payable, may be prescribed.

Clause 6 (section 5):

This does not amend the present provisions of the section, except that the copy of the first issue of a newspaper shall be sent to the Secretary and not to the Minister,

Clause 7 (section 6):

The existing provision does not provide clearly who must ensure that the names and addresses of the publishers and printers appear in a newspaper. As the clause is now worded, this responsibility is being placed on the printer.

Clause 8 (section 9):

As hon. members will notice, this provision that the editor of a newspaper published in the Republic must be resident in the Republic, was included in the chapter containing general provisions. It relates exclusively to newspapers and in the Bill it is included in the chapter dealing with the registration of newspapers. The definition of “Republic” will make it possible for such an editor to reside in Souh-West Africa as well.

Clause 9 (section 7):

This is the provision that a printer’s name must appear on his printed matter, and it remains unchanged.

Clause 10 (section 8):

This clause deals with the registration of imprint abbreviations. The only real change it effects to section 8 of the existing Act, is that the publication of imprint abbreviations in the Gazette is being done away with, as it serves no purpose. Furthermore, it is now being provided that the particulars to be furnished, the form to be used and the fees payable shall be prescribed.

Clause 11 (section 10):

This clause contains the penalty provisions and the amendments being proposed, i.e. that the fine which may be levied be increased from R200 to R500, which is a more realistic amount at the present time. In subsection (2) the onus is placed on the person publishing a publication to prove that it is not a newspaper intended for public sale or public dissemination in terms of this Act. The latter is a new provision.

Clause 12 (new):

This is also a new provision, which is aimed at granting the Minister powers of delegation. The existing Act does not provide for this, and this causes delay in the implementation of its provisions.

Clause 13 (new):

This contains the power of making regulations, which is not provided for in the existing Act.

Clause 14 (new):

This clause provides for the application of the Bill to South-West Africa as well as that three months shall be allowed for newspapers in that territory to be registered free of charge.

Clause 15 (section 11):

This clause repeals the existing Act and also provides that all newspapers and imprint abbreviations registered in terms of that Act shall be deemed to have been registered under this Bill.

Clause 16 (section 13):

This is the last clause and contains the short title. In addition it provides that the Bill shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The reason for this is that, before the Act comes into operation, the regulations prescribing the procedures, fees and other relevant particulars have to be drawn up.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, this Bill is aimed at modernizing and improving mainly administrative statutory provisions which have been in force for 37 years already, and I trust it will enjoy the support of this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, we accept, as the hon. the Minister has said, that this Bill is in fact a consolidation with certain up-dating and amendments of existing measures. We will support this measure, but there are one or two matters that I wish to refer to in passing at this stage.

There is always apprehension when requirements which were previously contained in an Act are to be prescribed by way of regulation. I refer here to the form of information to be supplied in an application for the registration of a newspaper. In terms of the existing 1934 legislation, the information required is contained in the Act, and the fee is stated. Having regard to the basic provisions of this Bill, namely that an application must be made for registration by the publisher of a newspaper, registration must at the same time be effected by the department. This takes place as soon as the application is made and the fee is paid. It is not permissive. It shall be registered if it complies with the formal application. I take it therefore that it is not envisaged that this application form shall contain anything other than information to identify the publisher, the place of business and the name of the newspaper. The hon. the Minister did mention one ominous matter, namely that the present fee of R2 will be updated to be more realistic. If I assume that he is going to do so in the same ratio that he has updated the penalties, then one need have no fear that it will be more than R5, as the penalties were updated from R200 to R500.

I also want to deal with a matter arising from clause 11 (2). Although it is a matter which can be discussed in more detail in the Committee Stage. I do wish to raise with the hon. the Minister some thoughts regarding the clause and the manner in which it is now drafted. The subsection reads as follows—

Now what is a “publication”? A publication might be a purely innocuous pamphlet of some sort which is meant for public dissemination. I think what is intended here, and the hon. the Minister will no doubt agree with me, is that when something is published which contains certain political material and news material, it will fall within the definition of a newspaper. I hope the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to this before we come to the Committee Stage. I would have preferred it to provide that in the event of a newspaper being published within the definition, it shall be presumed to have been for public dissemination unless the contrary is proved. In other words, the publication must basically contain the elements of what constitutes a newspaper before this presumption arises that it is intended for public dissemination. These are matters which can be gone into in more detail in the Committee Stage. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for supporting this measure in principle, and I must say that I appreciate it. I made notes of the points he raised and I hope that it will be possible to look at them. The question he raised about the definition of a newspaper as he sees it is rather interesting. Under the definition of “newspaper” in clause 1 the hon. member will find that “periodical publications” are also mentioned. I think it is possible to cover the points the hon. the member mentioned under this definition in clause I. In any event, I think it is a legitimate point. I will have a look at it, and during the Committee Stage it may be possible to effect the necessary amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, at present the Electricity Supply Commission has eight power generating and distributing undertakings in the Republic. Four of these undertakings, viz. that of the Witwatersrand and Orange Free State, the Eastern Transvaal, the Northern Cape and Orange River, are already at present receiving all their electricity from a common source which comprises the power stations which belong to two undertakings, i.e. that of the Witwatersrand and Orange Free State and the Eastern Transvaal. They are regarded as a “pooled source” industry, which actually means that the costs incurred by these two undertakings for power generation are apportioned among all the power-consuming undertakings served by them, on an approved basis.

Power generation according to the so-called “pooled source” system constitutes substantial benefits as far as capital and operating costs are concerned, particularly in the long term and particularly, too, as far as remote areas are concerned, and consequently the Electricity Supply Commission intends expanding this system further on a national basis and establishing a development undertaking which will take over all linked power stations. However, this step cannot be taken without the amendment of the existing Electricity Act, 1958.

For the information of hon. members it may be mentioned that power generating by pool power stations instead of by separate local coal power stations can result in the following savings in capital and operating costs:

(i) Capital costs on power stations

Larger machine units of 350 to 500 megawatts for pool stations as against, for example, the Western Cape system which justifies an optimal machine size of 100 to 125 megawatts, entails a saving of 6 to 8 per cent on the capital costs per kilowatt produced by the pool stations.

(ii) Labour costs

A saving of 8 to 10 per cent in manpower can be effected because the number of workers required for the industry does not increase in equal proportion to the change-over from small to large sets of equipment.

(iii) Fuel costs for power stations

A saving in fuel costs will be made possible firstly, in that larger sets operate at a higher output and therefore require less fuel per kilowatt-hour; secondly, in that it is cheaper in the long term to transmit power than to deliver coal per rail to a power station, because transmission costs remain more stable in comparison with railage costs which, as in the past, will continue to show a tendency to increase; thirdly the system of linked pool stations will make centralized control possible, which will entail that units which produce at increased fuel costs may be switched off when the demand for electricity, as in the warm summer months, decreases.

To be able to undertake the establishment of a development undertaking on a national basis, it will be necessary to expand section 4 (l) (a) of Act 40 of 1958, as indicated in clause 1 of the Bill. As hon. members will observe, clause 1 requires that the Minister of Economic Affairs approve the principle before the Commission may take the necessary further steps to amalgamate two or more of its undertakings, that is, before the Commission may approach the Electricity Control Board for a licence in terms of the new section 23 (5), as inserted by clause 4 of the Bill. On this basis it will therefore be possible to ensure that such an application will be in the interests of the efficient supply of electricity and of the consumers of electricity.

The saving on production costs made by such a national development undertaking, will obviously have a beneficial effect on the price which the consumer will have to pay for electricity. In addition to this it should be borne in mind that section 14 (4) of the Act lays down as general principle that the undertakings of the Commission shall, as far as is practicable, be run on a basis not of profit nor of loss, and that the Commission, from time to time, shall adjust its prices accordingly.

In addition the Bill makes provision for the establishment and building-up of an internal capital development fund by the Electricity Supply Commission. The Commission has up to now financed all its expansions from external loan capital, supplemented by funds from its Reserve Fund and its Sinking Fund. Escom, however, finds it difficult at present to find the necessary capital funds which are required for its many, considerable future expansions, while interest rates have in addition soared. It is consequently the intention to proceed to the establishment of a Capital Development Fund which could be supplied and built up annually from the Commission’s income.

The existing section 13 (2) of the Act, however, only makes provision for a Reserve Fund and provides that contributions of not more than 3 per cent per annum of the total amount of unredeemed loans of the Commission may be paid into the Fund, with the further proviso that the total amount in the Reserve Fund shall not exceed 15 per cent of the Commission's unredeemed loans. Apart from that the Electricity Act provides that this Fund may only be utilized for the replacement of obsolete machinery and equipment, special repairs and emergencies, but not for ordinary maintenance or expansion. In addition this Fund has been built up by and allocated to Escom’s various undertakings in terms of the specifications of the existing Act. The idea has been expressed that the objectives of the Fund could easily be expanded by way of simple legislation, so that expansions may also be financed from it, but eventually it was felt that such expansion of the objectives would really be foreign to the Fund, apart from the fact that the accountants and auditors of Escom pointed out that such a step would cause considerable accounting problems.

Clause 2 of the Bill therefore makes provision for the establishment of a Capital Development Fund. The clause provides that the annual joint contributions to the existing Reserve Fund and the to be established Capital Development Fund may not exceed 3 per cent of the total amount of unredeemed loans and that the total amounts in the Capital Development Fund and Reserve Fund may not exceed 15 per cent and 7½ per cent, respectively, of the unredeemed loans of Escom. According to calculations it will, with contributions at this rate and in the light of current interest rates, be possible within eight to nine years to build up a Capital Development Fund in order to maintain a position of equilibrium from which it will be possible, annually, to provide almost half of the funds which will be required for capital expansion.

Clause 4 of the Bill comprises a consequential amendment arising out of clause I which makes provision for the amalgamation of two or more Escom undertakings. It authorizes the Electricity Control Board to issue a licence to Escom for the establishment of power-generating undertakings by way of amalgamation. Such a generating undertaking will generate electricity for supply to other undertakings of the Commission which will then in their turn undertake the distribution of the power thus supplied.

In addition clause 5 of the Bill contemplates an amendment of section 40 of the principal Act. In terms of this amendment the Electricity Control Board will be empowered, after having given 12 months’ notice, to amend or withdraw its consent in terms of which local authorities were granted the right to supply electricity out side their areas of jurisdiction, in cases where it deems this to be in the interests of the efficient supply of electricity or the consumers of electricity. Such amendments or withdrawals may only be made after the expiry of a period of 15 years from the date on which the original consent was granted. However, the Control Board shall, at the request of Escom or of an urban local authority be able to amend or withdraw such consent at any time on 12 months’ notice.

In this connection it may be mentioned that the provisions of section 40 are at present causing considerable problems, for no provision exists in the Act in terms of which the Control Board may amend or withdraw in justified circumstances its existing unconditional consent of the nature to which I have just referred. In particular, problems are being experienced in those cases where that consent was issued by the Board years ago, but where the circumstances in regard to power supplies at present differ fundamentally from those prevailing at the time of the initial granting of consent. This situation for example gives rise to the following anomalies—

1. (a) Municipalities, in contrast to the Electricity Supply Commission, operate their electricity undertakings on a profit basis. Since they therefore make a profit on power supply in their own areas, they make further profits through the levying of additional charges for power supply outside their areas of jurisdiction;
2. (b) These profits are applied for general purposes within their own areas of jurisdiction to the benefit of their own taxpayers only. In other words, the external consumer subsidizes facilities for internal consumers from which the former derive no benefit;
3. (c) There are cases at present where small municipalities fall within the external supply areas of larger municipalities. The small municipalities in question are now, as a result of unconditional consent granted years ago by the Control Board, being deprived of the right to make other arrangements to the best advantage of its own power consumers;
4. (d) Complaints are continually being received to the effect that as a result of the unassailable position in which “old” licence-holders find themselves, poor service is being rendered, accompanied by long delays in making connections, owing principally to the fact that the “old" licence-holders are scarcely able to keep up with the demand for facilities even within their own areas of jurisdiction.

It obviously follows that the above-mentioned circumstances have a restrictive effect on development and that this gives rise to justified complaints and dissatisfaction.

For these reasons it is therefore being deemed necessary to amend the existing section 40 of the Act, as already explained, with the express priviso that fair compensation be paid in respect of equipment, fixed assets, etc., to a local authority in regard to whom consent is being amended or withdrawn. Where an agreement in regard to the compensation cannot be reached, the parties in question may have recourse to arbitration.

These, Mr. Speaker, are briefly the provisions contained in this Bill. I may add that this Bill was also submitted to the South African Agricultural Union and the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, and both bodies made certain proposals which were in the main accepted.

In addition, I just want to mention that I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage that in line 21, on page 4 the expression “(1)’’ be omitted and “(I) (a)" be substituted, which is merely a correction.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill, but there are one or two items about which I would like a further explanation from the hon. the Minister. As the hon. the Minister knows, this Bill is part of the long-term plan of the Electricity Supply Commission. They have big plans ahead. When we have the atomic power station established and the Cabora-Bassa scheme completed, they will be the bulk suppliers. In many cases the smaller municipalities will only come in at peak loads. Some recognition will have to be taken of the fact that some of these power stations may have to close down and that some of them will have to be merged. This takes care of that. This will, however, cause concern when two big municipalities merge and have to share a load. For example, if there is the sharing of a load over a grid system between Johannesburg and Cape Town and different rates are charged by the two different cities, a complaint could come from cither the one city or the other which has established a low cost factor and finds that, as a result of the merger, the rates go up.

There is another provision in this Bill which provides for money to be put aside for capital development. The hon. the Minister explained that in great detail and put up a case for it, but he did not tell us the extent to which electricity rates would go up. Surely, if they are going to provide for additional amounts for capital development, that provision will come into the cost factor and will increase the cost. The only way of recouping that will either be by means of saving through bulk supply or by means of an increase in the rates. Can the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that there will not be an increase in the rates? It has been suggested by one of the leading local authorities that, outside the municipal areas where they have to give up their rights to distribute electricity, in compensating them for their capital costs, they should also be compensated for any losses they may incur. Many of the municipalities have regarded their power stations and electricity services not only as a service to the area, but also as a trading undertaking, which has helped to relieve the municipal rates. If, under this scheme, the local power stations are closed down or merged, there is not only the cost of the municipal power stations, but there is also the possible losses as a result of the municipalities not being able to look to this trading undertaking to provide relief of rates. This may result, indirectly, in an increase of the local rates. These are factors which, I think, should be taken into account. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an answer either now or during the Committee Stage, when we discuss the relative sections. Subject to those remarks, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I would like to join the hon. member for Pinetown in asking the hon. the Minister to advise this House what the effects of the implementation of clause 2 of this Bill are going to be on the electricity tariffs charged by Escom. Whereas previously Escom has been empowered to set aside, annually, certain sums for the benefit of the Reserve Fund which is to be utilized for the replacement of obsolete machinery or plant and generally for the betterment of plant owned by the commission or for exceptional repairs or emergencies, this Bill is now going to empower the commission also to establish a Capital Development Fund for new capital projects. In doing so, this Bill will be adopting some of the recommendations of the third report of the Franzsen Commission, which recommended that the share of internal funds of public corporations and other Government organizations, used as a source for financing capital expenditure, should be increased. We on this side of the House have already stated that we support that principle, providing it is applied in moderation, As far as Escom is concerned, I think it will be particularly necessary to use moderation when using revenue funds for capital expenditure for the very reason that Escom is such a capital-intensive organization and has such very great capital requirements. In fact, over the next ten years it is estimated that Escom’s capital requirements are going to double.

In 1969, namely the last year for which we have figures, the fixed assets of Escom were R1 272 million which produced electricity to the value of only R175 million. In other words, the value of electricity produced was only one-seventh of the value of the fixed capital employed. Capital expenditure in the same year was R157 million, nearly as much as the amount of electricity produced. The average of capital expenditure over the last ten years has been R82 million. All this means that if any considerable amount of capital is going to be financed by Escom from internal sources, the effect of that type of financing is going to magnify the revenue requirements of Escom which in turn will considerably affect its tariff structure. I think this is something that it is necessary to guard against, particularly in times like this where we are faced with rising costs from all sides.

Fortunately clause 2 does limit the amount that may be set aside annually from revenue both for the Reserve Fund and for the Capital Development Fund to 3 per cent of the total of unredeemed loans outstanding to Escom. It also limits the total that may be credited to the Reserve Fund to 7½ per cent of such unredeemed funds and to the Capital Development Fund to 15 per cent. But if even this limitation, based on the 1969 figures, was used to the full, in comparison with 1969 when it was not, then there would have to be a 11 per cent increase in revenue to cover amounts to be set aside as reserve funds in accordance with these limits—in other words, tariffs would have to go up by 11 per cent. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to know what the intentions of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of the Government are in regard to the use of the powers contained in clause 2 and how the electricity tariffs of Escom are going to be affected.

As I understood it, the hon member for Constantia elaborated on the same problem as the one raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. As regards the pooling of services to, for example, two large cities—this is what I understood the hon. member to mean—I cannot accept that that will lead to higher tariffs, l indicated in my Second Reading speech that the more the power generated in a specific station, the cheaper the electricity supplied. However, it may entail that there will be different tariffs for the other place than for the one where it is being supplied. This can only lead to a reduction in tariffs for the second city. In any case, these are problems which can be considered administratively by Escom in carrying into effect the powers which it is being granted here. It would have an entirely different effect than the one intended if it entailed any increase in tariffs.

The other matter raised by the hon. member was the question of a municipality supplied by a larger municipality, which would now withdraw in order to make its own arrangements or would receive its power from Escom. The position is that an appeal may be made to the Minister after the Electricity Control Board has settled the matter. I believe that provision is also being made for arbitration if an agreement cannot be reached in regard to the compensation which has to be paid. I think therefore that the machinery which is being established will solve the problem.

Thirdly, a question was put to me as to whether the establishment of the Capital Development Fund could entail a possible increase in tariffs. I doubt it, because the total annual amount allowed remains 3 per cent of the unredeemed loan amount. It is only the limits which are being reviewed. The limit of the Reserve Fund is being reduced to 7½ per cent and the limit of the Capital Redemption Fund, the additional fund, is being set at 15 per cent. For the information of hon. members I may just say that the Reserve Fund has already reached its limit. Provision is being made for that. As is being foreseen for the next eight to 10 years, as compared with the present position, there ought consequently to be a reasonably balanced provision of the capital requirements of Escom.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At present persons whose earnings are in excess of R3 536 per year have been excluded from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the moment a worker earns more than this amount, he ceases to be a contributor to the fund and cannot build up any further credits for the purpose of unemployment benefits.

A maximum wage limit has been prescribed in the Act because only workers earning less than that limit are considered to be persons for whom provision should be made for assistance through the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

However, owing to wage increases it is necessary to review the maximum wage limit from time to time. In fact, in recent times representations in this regard were received from several trade union federations, insisting that the maximum wage limit be raised in order that persons who previously came within the scope of the Act but ceased to be contributors owing to wage increases, might once again continue as such.

The representations that were received, were referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board, on which both employers and employees are represented. The board unanimously recommended that the wage limit be raised to R4 264 per year. Clause I of the Bill gives effect to this.

Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions when the wage limit was raised, hon. members wanted to know whether the time had not arrived for making provision for additional wage groups with greater benefits than are at present payable to the highest wage group. The Unemployment Insurance Board also paid attention to this aspect and is of the opinion that the benefits in Group XII in relation to the wages, warrants an adjustment now.

The present Group XII includes all persons earning more than R1 794 per year up to a maximum of R3 536. The board is of the opinion that a reclassification should be made of this group since the gap has now, in view of the wage limit being raised, become too wide. Consequently it recommended that the maximum wage limit of Group XII be fixed at R2 600 per year instead of the present R3 536, and that provision be made for two additional groups, i.e. Groups XIII and XIV. Group XIII will then include persons whose annual earnings exceed R2 600 but are not in excess of R3 406. Group XIV will cover persons whose earnings are in excess of R3 406 per year up to a maximum of R4 264.

With regard to benefits, the board recommended that the Group XII benefits of R12 per week be raised to R15-40. In respect of Groups XIII and XIV R17-50 and R20-30 per week, respectively are being recommended. The board did not recommend any increases in respect of the other groups, as the workers in these groups automatically move up to the higher groups when they receive wage increases. As far as contributions are concerned, employees falling within Group XII will still contribute 12 cents per week, and their employers will contribute 8 cents, as is the case at present. Since 1957 employers have only been contributing 8 cents per week in respect of Groups VIII to XI. In 1961 Group XII was introduced, and in respect of this group, too, the employers’ contribution was fixed at 8 cents per week.

As far as the two additional groups are concerned, the employers will also contribute 9 cents per week only, but the employees will contribute 13 cents and 14 cents per week, respectively. The attitude of the employees has always been that employees whose earnings are in excess of a certain notch, should make a contribution larger than that of the employer. The board endorses this point of view.

Clause 2 of the Bill gives effect to the board’s recommendation on increased benefits in respect of the present Group XII, as well as the two additional groups, and clause 4 gives effect to the recommendation on the reclassification of groups owing to the raising of the wage limit. It is estimated that the fund will gain approximately 90 000 contributors because of the raising of the wage limit, The revenue in contributions for the first 12 months in Groups XII, XIII and XIV, will amount to approximately R6 162 000, whereas the benefits which will be paid out, will amount to approximately R6 940 000, i.e. a deficit of R778 000. However, it will be possible to make up this deficit through the contribution of the State as well as interest on investments.

Under section 29 (1) of the Act, temporary workers in the public service must also contribute to the fund, and therefore the Government departments and Provincial Administrations employing them, must also make contributions in respect of them. This applies to the Railways as well.

Furthermore, section 29 (2) of the Act provides that the State shall make to the fund a contribution equal to 25 per cent of the total amount paid by employers and employees in contributions to the fund. Owing to the wage limit being raised, the additional expenditure to the State will, in terms of the two sections mentioned above, amount to approximately R300 000 per year.

Mr. Speaker, now I come to clause 3. Clause 29 (9) of the Act empowers the Secretary for Labour to write off contributions due to the fund by employers, if such contributions cannot be recovered.

Sometimes it happens that for some reason or other the businesses of employers go out of existence whilst they still owe money to the fund. If the conclusion is arrived at beyond all doubt that no recovery is possible or that it would be uneconomic to recover the amount due, the case is referred to the Controller and Auditor-General for his inspection, comment or any action he may want to institute. After that it is submitted to the Secretary for l about so that he may write it off.

Section 43 of the Act provides, in turn, that benefits which are paid to contributors and to which they are not entitled, may also be written off if the Secretary deems it inequitable that such benefits be repaid. However, there are also over-payments which, apart from the question of equitability, are not recoverable. For instance, it may not be possible to trace the contributor or it may not be worthwhile to take steps against him. Furthermore there are cases where the contributor has become insolvent or has died and overpayments are discovered after the estate has already been administered.

In addition, there may be misappropriations by staff members which for some reason or other cannot be recovered. Up to now these amounts have also been written off with the approval of the Controller and Auditor-General. However, last year the Controller and Auditor-General expressed doubts as to whether non-recoverable over-payments of this nature and misappropriations may be written off in this manner. He suggested that the matter be referred to the law advisors. The law advisors decided that the Act did not contain specific provision for such amounts to be written off, and the proposed amendment seeks to eliminate this loophole,

Mr. Speaker, I think it is desirable that the amendments be put into operation as soon as it is practicable, since they are in the interests of the workers, and I therefore trust that they will meet with the approval of the House.

It goes without saying that whereas this Bill ensures greater benefits to the workers of South Africa, the Opposition will support it. However, it is necessary for us to draw the attention of the House to two matters in regard to this measure. The first is that very few real benefits are being granted to the majority of the workers. To a large extent this Bill is an acknowledgement of the fact that our money is depreciating in value all the time, and in the case of 11 of the classes of people who receive benefits under the Act, no change has been effected, but one must assume that they will in fact receive higher wages, since wages in general have been increasing so as to keep pace with the rising cost of living. One wonders whether there is any real improvement in the case of the workers in the new Groups XIII and XIV, and how long it will take before it will be swallowed up. The Bill would have meant more if there had also been increases in the benefits for the lower income groups, for then it would have had significance if one assessed its value in the light of continuous inflation.

The second point is that we should like to have some more information on one aspect of clause 3, the new clause which is being inserted, i.e. that even in cases where fraud was involved, those amounts will possibly be written off now. One can appreciate very well that the grounds which the hon. the Minister mentioned for writing off such amounts in other circumstances and for the change in procedure are in fact valid ones, but throughout the administration of our laws there is a tendency to have a proviso that in cases where fraud is involved, the amounts concerned will not be written off. Even the common law as far as prescription is concerned, Will not allow of any claim becoming prescribed if fraud is involved in that claim. The same applies in many other respects. Even the Receiver of Revenue, who tells us that he will accept after two years that returns were correct, lays down the condition that this will not be the case where fraud was involved; in that case he can go back as far as he pleases. This worries me, Sir, and I should like to hear from the Minister why powers for writing off certain amounts are also being granted in cases of fraud. Where there are practical reasons why money cannot be recovered, it may perhaps be arranged administratively that such money will not be recovered immediately; but circumstances may change, the reasons making the recovery impossible may change, and in cases where fraud was involved, the State must have the right to institute legal proceedings afresh. After all, to write off such amounts finally and totally is too great a privilege to grant a person who was guilty of fraud. With these two savings. Sir, we would be glad to support this Bill.

I should just like to furnish these additional particulars, which will be of interest to the hon. member and to the House, concerning the percentage which these benefits represent in the high groups of the wages. In the highest group the percentage of benefits, in comparison with the wages, will be 30 per cent. In the lower groups it will be from 37 per cent to 75 per cent. From these figures it is clear that people in the lower groups do receive a more favourable benefit from this fund than do those in the higher groups.

I do not find that in the Bill.

The fact that wage increases raise the earnings of the people in the lower groups, necessarily results in their falling under higher groups and consequently receiving greater benefits.

Then, as far as the question of fraud is concerned, I just want to say that nobody likes to defend fraud. It is one of those evils which one should like to stamp out by instituting legal proceedings, but to our knowledge people who have committed fraud are often in such a poor financial position that, in view of the fact that it costs us such a great deal of trouble and money to recover that money, the game is not worth the candle. In the past such amounts were written off with the approval of the Auditor-General; in other words, he accepted our judgment in regard to the non-recoverability of such amounts. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall not pass over these matters lightly. I quite share the feeling of the hon. member that one should not simply ignore such a misdemeanour. I want to give him the assurance that we shall continue to exercise our good judgment, but in cases where it becomes apparent that we cannot recover anything and that we shall only incur unnecessary expenditure for the fund, I want to trust that the hon. member will abide by the decision of the Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill Parliament is requested to approve of the appropriation of a further amount of R41 406-64 to meet certain expenditure which has been declared unauthorized. Particulars of the circumstances in which the expenditure was incurred, are given in the Controller and Auditor-General's Annual Report which deals with the financial year 1969-’70 and which has been tabled in the House, as well as in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1970, and in the First Report, 1971, of the committee concerned, Both these reports have been adopted by the House and therefore I do not deem it necessary to furnish any further information on this matter.

Sir, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. The subject matter has already been before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The report has been tabled in the House and the House has approved of the report.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the commencement of the Land Survey Act, 1927, on 1st January, 1929, land surveyors have been recognized and allowed to practice as such in the Republic in terms of the provisions of that Act. The Land Survey Act repealed certain Acts which had regulated the recognition of land surveyors on a provincial basis. The Land Surveyors’ Registration Act, 1950, in turn provides for the registration of land surveyors recognized as land surveyors in terms of the Land Survey Act and also makes provision for a central council of land surveyors with disciplinary powers as far as the land surveying profession is concerned.

Members who have been appointed, inter alia, by the institutes of land surveyors of the provinces of the Transvaal, the Cape and Natal, as their delegates serve on the central council of land surveyors as well as the survey regulations board. In terms of the Institute of Land Surveyors Incorporation Ordinance. 1904, a private ordinance of the Transvaal in terms of which the Institute of Land Surveyors of the Transvaal was established, a land surveyor who had been admitted as a land surveyor in the province of the Transvaal in terms of the old Acts, prior to the commencement of the Land Survey Act, 1927, ipso facto became a member of the Institute of Land Surveyors of the Transvaal. In the Cape Province and Natal the statutory position was more or less the same.

Although the institutes or associations of land surveyors concerned have, since the commencement of the Land Survey Act, 1927 been admitting any land surveyor practicing in the province concerned as a member of the province in which he has been practicing, legal opinion taken indicates that such admission does not fall within the provisions of the private Acts concerned, as a land surveyor is not admitted or recognized on a provincial basis under the Land Surveyors Act. Doubt as to the legality of the membership of the members so admitted, implicates not only the legality of the constitution of the institutes concerned, but also the legality of the constitution of the two boards concerned, as well as decisions which the said boards have taken from time to time. In order to eliminate this shortcomings in the Act, it is therefore being proposed that the Land Surveyors Act, be amended with effect from the date of its commencement, i.e. 1st January, 1929, so as to provide that if a person is recognized for the purposes of the Land Survey Act and is entitled to practise as a land surveyor and normally practises as such in any of the provinces, he shall be entitled to be a member of the institute of land surveyors of the province in which he so practises. The law advisor is satisfied that such a provision will cover the entire situation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has explained this Bill to this House in a particularly good manner. Although he has done this in a cursory manner, I want to tell him that we on this side of this House have no objection to the passing of this Bill because it seems to be essential for a certain rectification to be made in order to ensure that all land surveyors practising in a particular province will, in fact, be entitled to be members of the institute concerned. Therefore we agree with the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for East London City. In his speech he seemed to indicate that one of the big features of tourism should be the protection of South Africa’s image overseas. My view is that this is incidental to tourists coming to South Africa. Basically the whole idea is to attract tourists to South Africa for the purpose of obtaining the maximum amount of foreign currency from the tourist influx. The hon. member knows that when it comes to our balance of payments as far as tourism is concerned, more money is expended by South Africans who tour overseas than the amount that is brought in by tourists to South Africa. Sir, I do not agree with the hon. member that the “image aspect” ought to be one of the major features of tourism.

But it is definitely very important.

I accept it as incidental; but the true image of South Africa is supplied overseas by the Department of Foreign Affairs and by the Department of Information offices overseas. It is not the function of the Department of Tourism. I quite agree with the hon. member that tourists who come to this country have a different impression of the country when they return to their own homelands. But basically this is purely incidental as far as tourism is concerned, and I do not regard it as a major function of my department. I wanted to make that clear to the hon. member, because I did not want him to think that I ought to use tourism primarily for establishing a good image of South Africa overseas.

The hon. member also talked about private lodging and the fact that more use should be made of private lodging, particularly when the hotels are full. Of course, in the report—and it was not a long report— this particular aspect was studied by the department and various discussions ensued. If you look at page 5 of the report, Sir, you will see the following—

I might tell the hon. member, however, that one of the big problems, as he will appreciate, is that the accommodation establishments which are licensed for that purpose, consider it almost an intrusion on the accommodation which they offer to tourists. Therefore, one has to handle the situation very delicately. The hon. member seemed to give the impression that we had just neglected this aspect altogether, which is not the case We investigated the matter; we talked to the accommodation industry and said to them; “Look, we are not trying to do you out of your revenue or anything like that, but there are people who come to South Africa who really would prefer to stay in private homes rather than in hotels.” It is on these lines that we operate.

You are the one who said we could not accommodate them.

But I am just referring to the fact that the hon. member said we had never even gone into the matter of private accommodation, and here it stands in the report. It is not a long report; as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Constants said it was a very scanty report. And yet the hon. member made the allegation that we had not even gone into this matter of private accommodation for visitors from abroad. [Interjection.]

I think the hon. member must read his own Hansard and see what he said.

Now I come to the hon. member for Constantia and the speech he made. I know the hon. member for Constantia—he studies his subject and he really endeavours to put across a case as he sees it. I was a bit surprised that he tried to get a few laughs out of certain aspects of this report, and particularly the one about the caddies’ clothing. I want to tell the hon. member that the matter of the unattractive clothing of caddies has on a number of occasions been referred to by overseas people.