The hon. member for Green Point, in the last speech which he made last night, referred to a speech made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in which he described to the House his attitude regarding the issue of passports. The hon. member for Green Point then said that he regrets the attitude of the hon. the Minister which is one of “take it or leave it”. Sir, here we have a correct and a good illustration of the difference between the National Party on the one hand and the United Party on the other. The attitude of the National Party and of this Government is always: ” There are my principles; I stand by them or I fall by them; this is my policy; take it or leave it.” The attitude of the United Party on the other side is as follows: The United Party would say; “These are my principles; do not worry if you do not like them; I will change them.”

*Sir, I want to come to an aspect of a speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. On a previous occasion this year when this House was discussing the Publications Control Amendment Bill, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said (col. 3373 of Hansard)—

Sir, I now wish to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout across the floor of this House whether that is still his standpoint.

Yes.

The hon. member said “yes”. Sir, the hon. the Minister of the Interior said in this House that because we were governing well, and because we wanted to govern well in the interests of South Africa, we welcome criticism provided it is fair, honest and constructive criticism. Sir, I am sorry that I have to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout from a back bench on this side of the House—and I am fully aware of the fact that he is a senior front-bencher—that he is irresponsible in his criticism. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is waging a campaign which is aimed—and if it is not aimed at doing this, it can only have this result—at blackening South Africa’s name in the outside world. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, if he wants to call himself a South African, should feel ashamed at the way in which he levels criticism in this House. But, Sir, that is not the end of the story. On that occasion, after he had said that, the following question was put to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

What was his reply, Sir? His reply was—

I was speaking about political censorship yesterday.

Where is the proof that our censorship laws are closer to the communistic laws than to the Western model? Where is that proof? I want to tell the hon. member across the floor of this House that he did not produce that proof.

Show me a Western country which has political censorship.

Sir, it is not for me to produce this proof. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he would produce the proof. I challenge him: Where is that proof? He will have other opportunities to speak in this House. He can rise to his feet when I have finished speaking and produce that proof. Let him produce that proof, chapter and verse. But, Sir, that was not the end of his blackening campaign, because what happened then? A little while later he said—

Sir, what was he implying here? Surely this is a mean and base kind of denigration.

Order! The hon. member may not say that; he must withdraw it,

I withdraw it. I want to say to the hon. member’s credit that he does not realize that the criticism he expresses can be called nothing else but mean and base, although he is perhaps not clever enough to realize it.

Order! The hon. member is now circumventing my ruling. He must withdraw those words and not refer to them again.

As it pleases you, Sir. I withdraw them. Sir, the hon. member for Carletonville then reacted and said to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: “You do not know what you are talking about,” and that is the opinion one must form of that hon. member. He does not know what he is talking about. Sir, I want to give you an idea of how this type of thing is taken further. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout's henchman, who writes under the name of Hogarth de Hoogh, the hon. member for Kensington, took this matter further the following Sunday in the column of which he is the co-editor, and wrote the following—

“Tripe,” they yelled, “prove it.”

Perhaps I can help here. To begin with, the role of the Publications Control Board in South Africa is remarkably similar to that of Russia’s Glavlit.

Glavlit’s job, officially, is to preserve the ideological purity of party and public from contamination by alien ideas.

Then he went on to say—

The hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout know that no censorship or control is being exercised on a basis of what is good for the National Party; but control is being exercised over publications on the basis of what is good for South Africa. The political faith and the political premise of any writer in South Africa is irrelevant as far as the Publications Control Board is concerned.

I think the hon. the Minister of the Interior illustrated this very clearly here yesterday. I want to state unequivocally here that the Sunday Times is dealing with lies here, and not only with lies, but with denigration of the worst kind. We on this side of the House are not opposed to criticism. We said this a moment ago, and so did the Minister, But we do not want this type of denigration. We do not want this type of image-building which is unworthy of any news media in South Africa. It is quite simply an irresponsible denigration, and is devoid of any facts. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not produce any facts which could form the basis of this. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he would produce proof. He did not do so, but what he said had its effect. He levelled his criticism, criticism which was unjustified and of which he was unworthy. He is a real “hit and run artist”. He hit and ran. He did not hit and stand his ground and prove that he had been right in doing so. He is a hit and run artist and that is what the United Party is to an increasing extent becoming, together with the English press. It is a hit and run party. They mete out insults and level criticism, but when that criticism is analysed to the bone, they run away, and when you want to engage them in battle, they are simply not there. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Pretoria Central is yet another one who has joined the long list of people in his party who believe that criticizing the Nationalist Party is unpatriotic, and I think if one sees it in this light one will have a good idea of his basic philosophy.

There is just one other thing I want to say. This Committee can test that hon. member. It is about time he was brought to heel. He mentioned an article in the Hogarth de Hoogh column in the Sunday Times in his speech a few moments ago, and he stated to this Committee as a fact that I had written it. Now, I would not have minded having written it…

Deny that you wrote it.

Shut up!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Shut up?

Yes.

The Leader of the House uses it.

Order! The circumstances do not allow it in this particular case. It is rude to say “Shut up”; it is unparliamentary. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman. I withdraw, but he must keep quiet.

This is where we put that hon. gentleman to the test, and this Committee and this House will know from now on how much veracity can be attached to his words. So far he has mentioned four articles which he has stated specifically in this House were written by me and I can tell him that I wrote not one of them. I had no prior knowledge of them and the first time I knew anything about them was when they appeared in the Sunday Times. I think from now on this House and this Committee will know exactly how to treat the hon. member. [Interjections]

Order!

I go so far as to say that even his pet newspaper. Hoofstad, had to correct some of his wild allegations. I do not propose to waste any further time on this hon. member.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Waterkloof, who last night dwelt at length on what he called “the royal prerogative of the State” in refusing passports. With his own impeccable logic he said that the position was that passports are refused and that is that. That is as far as he was prepared to go, and he felt that the matter should be left there. In fact he seemed to suggest that once the Minister had decided not to grant a passport. no further discussion should be brooked. Unfortunately he himself was a little late in the field, because the hon. the Minister had gone much further than he did in a previous speech he made. The hon. the Minister gave us eight reasons why passports are not granted. I must say, in passing, that we are grateful indeed to the hon. the Minister for having gone so far. Now for the first time we have been able to take just a little peep behind this hitherto impenetrable curtain masking what goes on in the department. Looking at these eight reasons, which I have had an opportunity to study now, one sees that they can be divided into two broad sections. The one section of reasons, consists of what are in this country criminal offences. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, if he has information of this sort and uses it as a reason for refusing passports, why these people who were refused passports for those reasons were not prosecuted. And I want to ask him whether he can tell us in all conscience that in the case of Alan Paton or Athol Fugard any one of these eight reasons could fairly be applied to that case. I suggest that not one of these reasons could be advanced for refusing the passports. I suggest that much the same happened in the case of Laurence Gandar, the former editor of the Rand Daily Mail, who also was refused a passport. Subsequently of course it was granted to him, but not one of these eight reasons could conceivably have been applied to him.

Now I want to come to another matter dealing with the Government Printer. On a number of occasions during the last few years we have suggested to the Government that it is wasting public funds. Government members have tended to challenge us to come forward with examples of this wastage of funds, which we have done. I want to come to another example this morning. I want to suggest that in one field of enterprise which falls under the Government Printer, considerable sums of money are being spent which are of no benefit cither to the public or to the Government. In the years I have been in Parliament, either in the Press gallery or in the Chamber, I have seen a marked change in the nature of the official publications put out by the Government Printer. Some have been improved for the most merit-worthy reasons. Publications aimed at distribution abroad should be glossy and well turned out, and even a publication such as Paratus of the Defence Department should, I think, be a well turned out publication. But by the same token I see no reason whatever why we should be confronted now with what can perhaps be best described as a rash of glossy, multi-coloured publications which have been introduced now to supplant the old Blue Book, the annual reports of the various Government departments and Government agencies. These are printed, of course, under the authority of the Government Printer, although from the Estimates it appears as though funds are recovered subsequently from the departments concerned. Nevertheless, the Estimates charge the full cost of the printing against the Government Printer, who falls under this hon. Minister.

Let us take, for instance, the annual report of the Department of Sport and Recreation for the year 1970. According to this publication, 1 040 copies were printed at a cost of R1 300, or approximately R1-25 each, Now for whom were the 1 040 intended? hon. members of this House each get one free, as do hon. members of the Other Place. A good number are distributed to newspapers, to libraries and to other interested destinations, and one can assume that a limited number are actually sold at the local listed price of R2-20. One can ask immediately what the people who receive these reports do with them. For the most part those who receive them are interested in them only as working documents. For my part, I would much prefer to work with a concisely produced and easy to read report produced rather faster than some of these reports are produced without the expensive frills and fancy bits that we see in this report. I would like to see such a report costing perhaps a third or even a quarter of what this one costs.

We can go to some other reports. I have here the report of the Secretary of the Department of Public Works. Nine hundred and fifty copies of this report were printed at a cost of R1 500, which means that each copy costs R1-58. Those are the printing costs alone and they do not include other costs of production. I suggest that that is quite shocking. We certainly do not need this type of cover, which would do justice to and could well grace the glossiest of the international, horticultural magazines. What I would like to see, would be the contents of this report produced speedily, clearly and simply. I suggest that we do not need these pictures or anything like that.

In the little time available to me, I want to draw the hon. the Minister's attention to another report, namely the report of the Statutory Committee of Education Heads. The actual print order of this report is not giver. but the costs was only R270. I think the Committee will agree that it is quite a presentable document. [Time expired.]

A few days ago I accused the hon. member for Kensington of writing articles attacking his political opponents in the newspapers under a non de plume, which I and all decent members of this House of course regard as despicable. The hon. member has the opportunity of attacking his opponents across the floor of the House.

Why do you not come with specific examples?

Wait; I am quite prepared to apologize to the hon. member if he gives the categorical assurance to this House that I am wrong and that he does not write articles attacking his political opponents in the Sunday Times either under the nom de plume of “Political correspondent” or “Hogarth de Hoogh”. If he gives the House that assurance, I am prepared to apologize to him for making a wrong accusation. The opportunity is there.

I am not giving any assurances. The hon. the Minister can go fishing wherever he likes. Make specific allegations against me.

It is common knowledge in the Press gallery that the hon. member does do it. If the hon. member gives this House the assurance that they are wrong and that I am wrong, I am prepared to apologize to him. If he is not prepared to give that assurance that I am wrong, we must accept that he is guilty of that despicable action.

What is despicable about it?

It is a despicable action because he is attacking his political opponents under a nom de plume in a newspaper when they cannot reply to him. That is despicable. There is no complaint against any hon. member continuing his profession as journalist. The hon. member for Yeoville has all these years continued his profession as journalist by writing articles in newspapers, but under his own name. There will be no objection to the hoc. member for Kensington writing articles attacking his political opponents in the newspapers, if he did so under his own name. Then we know whom we are dealing with. But I say that it is most despicable if the hon. member writes articles attacking his political opponents under a nom de plume when they do not get an opportunity of replying to the attacks,

Come with specific examples.

I am asking the hon. member for an assurance that he does not do that and that I am wrong. [Interjections.] I cannot be more fair than that. I am telling the hon. member that, if I am wrong, I am prepared to apologize to him. If the hon. member does not give that assurance, we accept that he is guilty of doing that. It is not a question of specific instances.

Why do you not come with specific examples like the hon. member for Pretoria Central did?

One cannot make specific allegations when the hon. member does not even sign his name. As I have said, if the hon. member is prepared to give the assurance to this House that I am wrong, I am prepared to apologize to him. If he does not give that assurance, he is guilty of that despicable action.

Everyone will then brand him as a man who has not the courage to attack his opponents when he has the opportunity across the floor of the House, but who makes use of anonymity in a newspaper to attack his political opponents, when they cannot reply to him. The hon. member has the opportunity and he can deny that if he wants to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the House has now given the hon. member for Kensington a perfectly clear opportunity to tell this House whether he writes under a pseudonym in any publication of the Opposition Press.

The hon. member is indulging in repetition and must now return to the Vote under discussion. This matter has already been replied to from both sides.

I just want to repeat to him…

Order! No repetition is allowed.

Then I want to ask the hon. member whether he is going to say “Yes” or “No”, because he tries with clever ruses…

Order!

Then I shall go on to discuss the Government Printer. The hon. member for Kensington, who so cleverly evades or tries to evade simple questions put by the hon. the Leader of the House and refuses to reply “Yes” or “No” to a specific question… [Interjections.] I am only referring to him. I am just describing him a little. What is wrong with that? For a long time you had “clever Jannie” and now you have “clever Oliver”.

The hon. member must now confine himself to the Vote, otherwise he must resume his seat.

I think the hon. member for Kensington referred to those publications by the Government Printer in an extremely negative way. He is being extremely negative in wanting to disparage such fine publications in this House. He may perhaps be right in the respect that many of those publications are printed for local use. But some of those publications go to the outside world as well, where they are read by other people. Those publications are not written under pseudonyms. They are publications of the Republic of South Africa.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

When you look at such a publication and it contains photographs, you look at those photographs with the very object of seeing what is being done. Those photographs present a picture of the activities of the department concerned But the hon. member wants to disparage them.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not want to listen to your questions. Sometimes these publications also contain a photograph of the author. The reason for that hon. member's objection is not the excellence of those publications, but the fact that some of them are given out on contract by the Government Printer and that payments are made to concerns to which he is not favourably disposed. That is the reason.

You are talking nonsense!

I should just like to raise a matter in connection with the removal of the Government Printing Works to Koedoespoort with the hon. the Minister. I think it is a good thing that an undertaking such as the Government Printing Works should be housed in proper premises and should be situated in a light industry area and have spacious and comfortable working conditions. I think it is necessary for the Government Printing Works to move there when the lime comes and the premises are ready, but I want to ask that provision be made for a depot or something of that nature to be retained for the Government Printer in the city centre for the sake of all those who have to fetch publications in the office of the Government Printer daily and from hour to hour. I am thinking in particular of the vast number of attorneys, auditors and other professional firms in the city who continually require publications from the Government Printer. I am also thinking of members of the public who wish to obtain some of those publications. I therefore want to ask that provision be made for a depot in the city where publications by the Government Printer can be obtained. I think this is necessary and will be convenient. To my mind it would be a convenient place for the Government Printer as well and would eliminate correspondence in particular.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the “Staatsdrukker”.

Do you write in newspapers?

My dear fellow. if I had written in newspapers then I would at least own up to it. I would not have had to resign from being a journalist because I was not one. The fact of the matter is I do not.

I should like to speak on the question of the annual volumes of the statutes which ceased to be published by the Government Printer after 1967. Until that date, we always had annual volumes which had very useful information in them, not only as to the contents in alphabetical order and so forth, but also information relating to the date of commencement of an Act and. amendments of various other Acts. It was a useful and very important publication. Since then there has been no publication of any volumes of the annual statutes. We here are privileged to have an annual volume which is prepared every year and which is really just a collection of the Government Gazettes put into order with an alphabetical index and a chronological index. The reason for this apparently is that the Government has made a contract with the firm of Butterworths for the publication of the consolidated statutes which appear in red volumes under various headings. There is no reason at all. it seems to me, why the Government Printer should not continue to publish annual volumes as they were published before. To the lawyers particularly this is extremely useful and very necessary. I am sure all the hon. legal gentlemen on the other side will agree with me that it is necessary to have the annual volumes of statutes.

When one examines the statutes to find out what the law means, one likes to know what the law was at that time when judicial decisions have been given in respect of it. One finds one’s way around better as a lawyer with the annual volumes than one does with Butterworths. The Government is hung up on Butterworths because it has made a contract with them for these consolidated statutes. The difficulty about Butterworths is that they are not consolidated in the form of an Act passed by this Parliament. If they were, then even if mistakes were made in the consolidation it would not matter, because that would then be the law as passed by this Parliament. But this is a consolidation done by the firm of Butterworths. They get help from legal people and other people. It is not gospel. One occasionally finds mistakes in Butterworths. There is a judgment of the Appeal Court of South Africa relating to a statute published in Butterworths, which the Government has contracted with to publish the statutes instead of publishing them in the form in which they were published formerly—indicating that what appears in Butterworths is wrong. It is not a reflection of what Parliament passed: it is not the law. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. It is a state of affairs which naturally can occur where you have the human element coming in through someone trying to consolidate the laws from the various statutes. Since 1967, you will find Butterworths everywhere. You will find them in every magistrate’s court and in every Native Commissioner’s court right throughout the country. This is what they have to rely upon in order to determine what the law is, because there is nothing else, and as I have said, it can be wrong. For example, in the case of the first Bill which appears on today's Order Paper, dealing with judges’ pensions, one would find great difficulty, when using Butterworths, in trying to discover where the law was that was being amended by this Bill. There is no reason whatsoever why the annual statutes should not continue to be published as before. It can involve the State in no expense whatsoever. One can, for example, say that the annual volume shall only be available to those persons who apply for it beforehand.

Order! Are we back on Justice now?

No. Sir, we are dealing with the Government Printer. I am indicating that it will not cost the State anything if the Government Printer continues to publish the annual volume, as he is already doing for a certain number of people.

He is just looking at the wrong Minister.

Yes. I am looking at the hon. the Minister of Justice, but that is only because the Minister of the Interior is hidden behind a pillar. If the Government Printer is going to publish these volumes in any case, he might as well publish more of them As I understand the printing business, you can publish 1 000 copies for almost the same price as 300 conies. I may say that there is least a secure market for these volumes. I would not mind if it were for example laid down that those who subscribe to Butterworths should be entitled to have them, if the contract the Government has entered into with Butterworths necessitates something of that nature. Otherwise one could say that those who subscribe to the Government Gazette should have such an annual volume. You could charge people for such a volume, and members of the profession would pay for it. because they need it. As I understand it an arrangement has been entered into between the Government Printer and the legal profession whereby the Government Printer has agreed to provide anyone who wants them with the printed statutes as they appear in the Government Gazette. Practitioners can then have these statutes bound themselves if they wish. I understand, however, that this arrangement costs as much as it does to be a subscriber to the Government Gazette. and if you are a subscriber to the Government Gazette, you receive these printed statutes anyway.

Sir, this is a very important aspect of one's life. One is presumed to know the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is very difficult to know what the law is, and it is in fact dangerous to rely entirely on Butterworths, as I have indicated. This is not only my own opinion. The Appeal Court has expressed the same view.

In this regard too. I wonder whether the time has not arrived when the regulations made in terms of Statutes should not also be published by the Government Printer in a concise form. This could be done in a loose-leaf volume. Very few of the laws which we pass do not have a provision that the Minister or the State President may make regulations in relation to that Act Where does one find these regulations? Very often it is impossible, without some guidance, such as that provided by Butterworths or other companies, to find regulations which are made by the departments. They appear in the Gazette from time to time, but they are very difficult to find. Some of them go back many years. It is difficult even for a lawyer to find these regulations, and the public, who are subject to these laws and are presumed to know them, find it almost impossible to track down these regulations The regulations are known to the various departments. Whenever one consults a department, one is told exactly when the regulations were published and what they are. The departments know exactly what the regulations are which concern them. It will therefore not cause any difficulty if we ask every department to publish the regulations applicable to them. They can then be given to the Government Printer, who can sell them, perhaps in a loose-leaf form. He could make a profit on the sale of those regulations. I am sure that not only the lawyers, but also the public in general, would buy these regulations. I think this is a very important matter, and I feel that this can easily be done. I hope that the hon. the Minister who has now taken over this portfolio will give this matter a fresh look. This matter has been mentioned before, in the old days, to other Ministers, but I hope that this Minister will give the matter fresh consideration. As I have said, I think it is an important matter as far as the law and as far as the public is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to reply to what the hon. member for Kensington said about the publication of annual reports by the various departments. His objection was that the departmental reports were excessively decorative, etc. He even objected to certain photographs appearing in them. He then came to the conclusion that the ordinary Blue Book form used in the past would cost less whilst still containing the same information. I should like to furnish an explanation in this regard because the hon. member raised the matter under the Government Printing Works Vote. According to State policy, because the Government printer cannot cope with all the Government printing work himself, the departments channel their advertisements and some of their publications through the Government printer. In some cases the Government printing works do the printing work themselves. and in other cases not. However, the departments themselves place the orders. In other words, the hon. member could have asked under each specific departmental Vote why the department in question incurred certain costs in respect of their expenditure. The different expenditure appeared under the different revenue Votes. The Government printer is in this case simply a channel acting as a factory, to put it like that.

But has he no influence?

The Government printer does the work the Departments ask him to do. The hon. member has the right to express the opinion that the publications, as they appear today, may be improved in certain respects, that they are too expensive for example, make too much use of modern advertising techniques, etc. There can be a difference of opinion about that, but I do want to ask whether the colour of a report, the way in which it is printed or the little additional expenditure which this entails…

It is not a little.

An amount of R1 000 for example is still a lot of money, but one must see it against the background of all the Government’s functions. An amount which is spent in this way to make a report attractive could perhaps bring a department a far better return because it led to people reading that report. We all know how people throw publications aside because they are not attractive and therefore do not arouse interest. That is why advertising techniques are being used. These matters are, however, in the hands of the various departments. This entire matter forms part of the modern dynamic era in which we are living, and the various departments must decide for themselves what they are going to do. In addition, there are differences among the departments, I may say that the Government printer as such, as a factory which undertakes this work, does not really have any say in this connection. Unfortunately I cannot say more than that in reply to the hon. member’s objections. There are some Government departments, such as the Defence Force and the Public Service Commission that channel their orders through the public service. With them the matter of publicity is important, because they must recruit their staff. Their contracts are channelled through the Government printer. For example, contracts were negotiated through them with the firm Van Zyl, Schultz, Lunt and Tredoux. They spend tremendous amounts every year, and I think that it is money well spent.

The hon. member for Waterkloof pointed out that a new Government printing works building complex is going to be constructed at Koedoespoort.

The hon. member for Waterkloof is not listening.

Is the hon. member concerned about whether he is listening or not? Would the hon. member not also like to know what is happening?

Yes.

Why is he then concerned about that hon. member? If the hon. member does not want to listen, it is his business. In any case, I think he is capable of listening with either ear. Be that as it may, I should like to announce, as far as this building is concerned, that we are all concerned because we are having some considerable difficulty with the storage of Government stores in a satisfactory and efficient way. We have now reached the planning stage of that building, and as recently as two months ago the Department of Public Works informed me that with the preparation of sketch plans, working drawings, quantity lists and a tender period we could expect the documentation of this R13 million complex at Koedoespoort to be completed in approximately 53 months, and after that the construction work will begin in about 1975. Sir, I listened to the hon. members representations for a depot in the city. I can understand the practical problem because it is quite a long distance, and we should give attention to an idea like this. I shall give it my attention.

The hon. member for Durban North was concerned about the publications in that particular form which is only available to a limited number of people. As he knows of course, the publications, in the form in which they are normally effective, are available from the Government printing works. He advanced the argument that it would not cost very much more to print a few hundred more. Very well, this is a matter to which one can give attention. Unfortunately the Government printing works is not able, with the manpower and the machinery at its disposal, to do all the printing work expected of it. The printing work given out on contract has increased from an amount of approximately R1½ million in 1967 to R2 872 000 in the 1970-’7I financial year. But there have been renovations of the Government printing works, particularly of machinery. We have good prospects with this new building complex, and ideas such as those raised by the hon. member here, are ideas to which we shall give our attention.

It is not machine trouble; it is finger trouble, I would have thought.

Sir, I am trying to accommodate the hon. member.

He can chip in with as many witticisms as he likes; it does not affect me; I am simply trying to reply to him. I nevertheless undertake, even though he is trying to make a minor point here, to bring what he mentioned here to the attention of the Government printer, but everything will depend on what is within the capacity of the Government printer as such within the next year or two.

Sir, I should very much like to express a special word of appreciation to the Government printing works and to the former Government printer and the present Government printer, because these people, as a factory which has to do work for the Government, which also has to channel work for the Government, is one of the most efficient we have in South Africa, if not the most efficient. These people are doing a monumental task, and they are doing it at a very low unit cost, one of the lowest unit costs you could find anywhere. That is why I think it is a good thing that our people will know that very hard work is being done here in a Government department where efficiency is the order of the day. I also want to mention that although there was concern about the storage of stores, there is less concern in this regard now, because it was possible to make certain arrangements with the Department of Defence to leave more space for us, through their moving elsewhere. The buildings which had no locks, have also been seen to. The position has been improved, and as far as the Government printing works is concerned, I can mention that the staff position during the past few months has improved to such an extent that there is no real major problem with staff in the Government Printing Works.

Sir, I had no intention of participating in the debate again. Yesterday I referred to the question of political censorship, and I also discussed it under the Vote of the Minister of National Education. But we had such an outburst from the hon. member from Pretoria Central here, that I just want to say a few words to him. In the first place I want to say that we are not at all interested in his kind of attacks on the “denigration” of South Africa. It is a well-known fact in this House that if a man does not have enough facts to enable him to deal with a case on its merits, he comes along with silly remarks like this. In any case, he or anyone else for that matter can go on doing that; it runs off our backs like water off a duck’s back. We will not allow such people to dictate to us what we regard as being in the interests of our country.

Why did we get this terrible outburst from the hon. member? All that I said was that our system of censorship was closer to the Russian model than to that of the Western countries. The hon. member could have tried to prove that this was not the case. I shall give him the proof of this but I did think he had enough intelligence to accept as proof the speeches I have already made. Everyone knows that in Western countries certainly those I know about there is no political censorship. The truth of the matter is that in the leading Western countries no censorship is even applied to communistic literature. That we do not want. I am very much, and our side is 100 per cent, in favour of censorship in respect of all communistic propaganda; but the Publications Board goes further. We go so far in our country as to ban material which is critical of the political policy of the Government. Sir, use is made of a section in the Act which one does not find in any other Western legislation. The section which is used, provides that a publication may be deemed to be undesirable if it or part of it is “harmful to relations between any sections of the inhabitants of the Republic”. As it stands here it sounds all very well, but it is applied in such a way that books which are critical of the Government’s policy are banned. Yesterday I mentioned here the example of Alec Hepple’s book “Verwoerd”, Sir, there are books in this country which were written about Gen, Smuts. The hon. member must read a book like Armstrong’s “Grey Wolf’ where Gen. Smuts is made out to be a heartless tyrant. But did the United Party ever think of banning such works?

Never.

Sir, so i can go on and mention numerous other books. I have been following the lists faithfully since 1965, and because I myself am somewhat of a collector of political works, I have found that a book sometimes stands on one’s shelf for two to three years and is then banned. I can mention examples of this. I have done so already here in the House. There is, for example, Bernard McKay’s “Africa in World Politics”, and Gwendolin Carter’s “Independence in Africa”. I have read these books. They stood on my shelves for two years and then were suddenly banned. I must say that most of this banning was done under the old Censor Board when a man like S. E. D. Browne served on that Board. This is the kind of thing which is going on. Sir, the system in Russia is that every writer there is a member of an official Government-controlled writers’ circle and if he should write something offensive to the Government of the day, he is simply banned from that circle and all his books are automatically banned. We have something like that here in this country.

You are talking ab solute nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that there is no political censorship of any kind in the Western countries. They go so far that they do not even ban communistic material. Consequently I am fully entitled to say that our system is closer to the Russian system than to that of the Western countries. If the hon. member wants to prove that I am wrong, let him do so. Yesterday I made an appeal to the hon. the Minis er to go into this matter, and I am certain that he shall do so. There are already signs of a slight improvement, but I think it is a matter which he might as well raise with the Publications Board again.

Just before replying to this debate, I want to say that I intended giving the hon. member for Kensington an opportunity to reply to the question put to him by the hon. the Leader of the House, but unfortunately the hon. member has left the Chamber. However, I hope he shall use the opportunity to reply to the question put to him, because I think he should do so at some stage or other. I think he owes it to this House, because I was one of the people who raised this matter on a previous occasion.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised an interesting matter this morning, but I am not going to devote the time at my disposal completely to that. Unfortunately I cannot reply fully to all the points which were raised. Actually, I just want to summarize the debate as far as I am able to do so.

Yesterday I availed myself of the opportunity to try to lay down and explain, as I saw them, the four or five important cornerstones of what I regard as the nascent policy of the Department of the Interior. I feel only one important matter was left in abeyance, and that was the question of the Public Service. Yesterday evening I indicated that I should like to see the Public Service as such divorced from the matters we had discussed up to now, and I feel that it is my duty as Minister of this department to say a few things about it.

There were, particularly in the past year, many new developments to which attention should be drawn and which call for a special compliment to be paid to the Public Service Commission and to the Public Service itself, The Public Service Commission is a section of the department which, as you know, is often criticized. The Public Service as such, including the Public Service Commission, is not always very popular.

Sir, if I may, and as a gesture of goodwill towards the hon. member for Kensington, I shall interrupt my speech at this stage and give the hon. member an opportunity to reply to the question put to him. If he wants to have an opportunity to reply to it, I should like to give it to him now,

I put the question.

I thought. Sir. your ruling was that the matter should not be discussed any further.

Oh no, he can reply to it. It is not a question of that; don’t you believe it. He can reply if he wants to.

If the hon. member should want to avail himself of the opportunity on a later occasion, I personally would appreciate it,

I was discussing the Public Service and the Public Service Commission, and now I come to the question of the salaries of non-Whites and the ratio between White and non-White salaries, which is an extremely important matter. It is becoming an increasingly important matter in our whole set-up in South Africa. But before I come to that, I have here a short list which I regard as unique achievements of the Public Service in recent years.

By way of comparison I just want to say that it is my personal belief—on the basis of the little I have read of Public Services in recent times—that we in South Africa are very fortunate. This is the impression I have gained. Not only do we have few signs of rebellion, opposition and dissatisfaction in our Public Service, but we tend to move in the opposite direction, for example, as regards the strikes which occur in certain countries. We in this country have had the offer from our Public Service that they would work an additional hour per day. This was criticized by people outside and it was said that this was in fact a very small contribution which was being made by the public servants of South Africa. But as a matter of interest, I want to mention that this means on the basis of the 270 000 public servants we have in South Africa, that we are receiving an additional 3 million manhours from our public servants free of charge. On behalf of my department and I, I want to praise them on this occasion and say that we greatly appreciate this concession from their side, that we particularly appreciate the many thousands of manhours they are giving us in the form of overtime, and that I would be grateful if the appreciation would be conveyed to the Commission itself.

A survey was made of 20 of the largest companies in South Africa in order to determine exactly what the contributions were of their staff towards semi-State bodies and private bodies. It was found that with the exception of one out of 20. the Public Service was putting in the largest number of working hours per man in the country. This is a very interesting fact to remember and we should appreciate this, especially in the light of the concession already made Furthermore, we are finding that outside institutions are requesting more and more aid from the Public Service in regard to the methods we are using at present. Some of the biggest companies, even in Cape Town in the past two months, have asked me and the Public Service Commission for guidance in regard to what methods we are in fact using in various aspects of the Public Service. I want to mention this because I think it is worth-while doing so.

What are the results of this? Over the past five years an inspection plan was carried out which is unique in South Africa as far as the Public Service is concerned. A total number of 805 major investigations were carried out in this time. The Mechanisation Group alone, which was established in 1962, carried out 1 453 investigations in this period. This is unique. This was the first time anything like this has happened. The Work Study Group carried out

I 404 investigations in the past five years. Furthermore, in this time the Commission succeeded in bringing about a direct and indirect saving of 20 800 posts which were unnecessary in the Public Service. Success was also achieved in saving R34 million as a direct and indirect contribution to State funds. Training under the bursary scheme led to the granting of 6 079 bursaries in 100 different directions, and already more than 2 000 people who were trained under the scheme are in our employment. At present we have 2 155 candidates for bursaries. I am mentioning this not in order to waste time by quoting long lists of figures here, but just because I feel that we should try to see these matters in the right perspective. I really believe that our Commission is doing what it can.

We have sent teams overseas and in the past year we opened a recruiting office in London; and the number of resignations from the Public Service was lower last year than over the past five years, especially as far as men are concerned. This is a good sign. This means a great deal to the Public Service in its struggle with the private sector. if I may put it like that. Actual recruiting we have extended to six different offices in South Africa which are undertaking this work at the moment. This enables us to carry out on the spot investigations. In addition we have established a new publicity division, something which is completely new in South Africa and which has led to much higher productivity than what we had before.

†In the few minutes I have left, I wish to deal with a matter which is of greater direct importance at present, and that is a matter which was raised by several hon. members during the debate—the question of the relationship between White and non-White salaries. I want to say immediately that the position is not entirely satisfactory. I am prepared to agree to this. As Administrator of Natal, I always took the point of view that the position is not satisfactory as it is at the moment, and that we should try to make further improvements. At the moment nearly 50 per cent of all the members of the Public Service are non-Whites, i.e. 130 000. This means that, in effect, one must crystallise a particular position for them in relation to the remuneration paid to our Whites who have been in the Service a longer time. This has become a major factor in the relationship between the Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. There is not only a difference, but at times there appears to be a growing difference in ratio in certain categories. In other cases the ratio has improved over the past years. The position has got to the stage that I have decided, with the support of the Cabinet, to refer the whole matter to the Public Service Commission again and to ask them for a comprehensive report on the whole question. I want the commission to give us a report and an insight into what can be done to bring about a more satisfactory position in the White-non-White ratio in this regard. I am not only referring to the Coloured teachers, of whom my colleague, the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs, spoke yesterday, but the whole field.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? With regard to the fact that a survey is to be undertaken which will obviously be a lengthy process, could not steps be taken in the interim at least to restore the ratios which were lost, for instance, in the medical services between White and non-White doctors?

We have put the terms of reference given to the commission for its investigation, very widely. I personally and others have already had interviews with members.

They could be handled under interim regulations.

Well, this is one of the problems I have put to them, I think that this is a matter which must be investigated by the commission. They may come back to us and suggest that in certain cases, which seem to deserve more immediate attention, something be done in the interim. This is a factor we will take into account. The whole investigation will however take time, as hon. members will appreciate. The work cannot be completed in a matter of months. It would be unfair of us to create the impression with any of our non-White groups that everything will come right overnight. This is not possible. It cannot be done in a limited period of time. In order to establish in modern times a satisfactory basis for remuneration between the various sectors of the population, it will require a most difficult and scientific investigation by the commission. I want to say to hon. members that the impression has been created by certain sections of the Press that very little has been done so far and that we have, in fact, widened the so-called gap between Whites and non-Whites with regard to salaries.

May I say that—before my time—the Government over the last ten years has taken a number of steps which have improved the position of the non-Whites considerably. I have them all listed here, but I am not going to weary hon. members this morning by telling them what we have done. Briefly we have rationalized the whole salary pattern, which has resulted in substantial increases as far as White and non-White people in the Service are concerned. It is interesting to note what has been done with regard to specific groups. The non-White medical and teaching personnel have been singled out for better benefits from the 1st April, 1969, as hon. members know. I might mention that in the case of medical officers, which is a pertinent matter which is brought to our notice from time to time, non-Whites have since then been remunerated on the same key salary scale as White officers. This is something to remember. Furthermore, the post structure and staff provision scales for Whites will apply to Coloured and Indian teachers, resulting in salary improvements, Tanging from 10 per cent to 43 per cent. I think that if we stress the positive side of what has been done, it will go a long way towards improving the relationship between the Whites and the non-Whites. Apart from this we have increased vacation savings bonuses and the rates of overtime remuneration. There have also been improved pension benefits All this took place in the past few years. However sympathetic the Government is. it must not be expected, in view of the financial responsibilities which may ensue from an investigation of this nature, that it can ignore its responsibility towards the taxpayer and the economy of the country. No snap decisions can be taken. The task is a very complex one which may take a long time.

Salary determination has become a highly specialized task. The establishment of a specific ratio is an important point which is often raised by the United Party and the Press of South Africa. But establishing a specific ratio pattern would probably mean discarding all the accepted principles of salary determination. From my point of view, this is important too. What does rational determination involve? In the first place, quality is taken into account. It is one of the cornerstones of rational salary structure. Remuneration must in the first place be based on quality. Other universally accepted criteria for salary determination are the following—and this comes from international works on the subject. It has not been born in South Africa or in my mind. These are accepted universally as the criteria which should form the basis for the establishment of different scales and ratios. Firstly, apart from quality, there is the level of responsibility in the case of the man who does the job. Secondly, there is the job content, thirdly the work circumstances, fourthly the qualification requirements and then the socioeconomic needs, the future prospects offered by the post structure and the supply and demand for workers. Then there is the question of the availability of funds which should be shouldered by the authorities.

I can give hon. members the assurance in the light of what the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and Planning has said, that it is the intention of the Government, bearing all these factors in mind, to try and develop a salary structure based on such principles and to make adjustments gradually as circumstances dictate. I think it should be placed on record that this is the full and correct approach of the Government to this particular matter. Granting of higher salaries as such and the creation of improved posts will not immediately solve the problem because of the simple fact that the tempo at which these people can qualify themselves is a very slow one.

I should just like to mention one more point in connection with the Public Service Commission.

*This point concerns the inquiry into the activities of the Public Service Commission and the Public Service which was requested by some members in the course of this debate. A few months ago I indicated very clearly that it was not possible for the Government to accept these requests from the Public Servants Association, the Opposition and its Press in South Africa. There are many reasons for that. Because of the lack of time, I am not going to give you the reasons. The most important of these is perhaps that if such a step were to be taken, the State President would be obliged to appoint a commission of inquiry into a commission he himself had appointed. This is a sine qua non. They simply cannot be reconciled with each other. The one cannot be done by the other. In 1924 the commission of inquiry was not appointed by the Governor-General. This was not the case in 1918 either. One cannot go further by insisting on that.

If I had sufficient time, I would gladly have replied to all the points raised by the hon. members. However. there are a few important points to which I should reply.

†The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of an improvement in subsistence allowances and the matter of the payment of leave gratuities. I can give the hon. member the information. It will interest the hon. member to know that since 1968 a thorough investigation which is now nearing finality has been undertaken in regard to the question of allowances. Proposals in this regard will be submitted to me in perhaps a matter of months. However. provision already exists that where subsistence allowances are inadequate, officials can claim if they wish to do so. There need therefore be no loss. An investigation was undertaken into the question of leave gratuities a few years ago. It was found at the time that very few public servants forfeited leave due to their retirement. As the result of this request by the Public Service Association all departments were requested to submit further details in this connection. These details are at present being analysed to determine whether any amendment to the existing provision is necessary.

That was the request from the Association in 1970?

Yes.

*The hon. member for Durban Central raised the question of the removal of teachers from the Public Service Commission. There are several objections to that. One of the major objections is, of course, that the doctors and scientists want this as well. If we are going to start removing groups from the Public Service, we shall reach a position which has already been reached in France, and that is that virtually half the servants have been removed from the Public Service. The determination of the remuneration of those outside groups makes it extremely difficult for those who have to remain in the Public Service. In addition, I may tell the hon. member that at the present time the teachers of South Africa already have a series of benefits which other public servants do not have. This is one of the reasons why I personally cannot support this standpoint at this stage.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who is not present at the moment, referred to two different investigations which had been instituted in the past. He mentioned them, because the hon. member is not present at the moment, I shall not reply to that. Two inquiries were instituted, but the hon. member was somewhat confused about this matter. It was not a single inquiry, as the hon. member thought. It was not the same inquiry which had not been published as yet. The first has done a considerable amount of work up to now. The second is a commission of officials appointed in 1970. They will make certain recommendations in this regard before long. It may interest hon. members to know that the first commission recommended that the Cabinet Committee appointed to carry out that investigation, was not the body which could best perform that task, but that that body was in fact the Public Service Commission itself.

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a point he has not dealt with yet.

I am trying to deal with the matters as quickly as possible.

Will the hon. the Minister reply to the questions I put and to the recommendations I made in regard to the matter of the general registration of voters which is to take place. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will clarify that matter.

There is no need for the general registration to coincide with the date on which the supplementary registration ends. To arrange matters in such a way that a supplementary registration will be the general registration as well, requires a statutory provision. The hon. member may discuss this matter with me later. I shall be able to tell him what the possibilities are in this regard.

In the last place I want to come to the replies to the various points raised with regard to the question of visas, passports, etc., points which are unrelated to the principles I dealt with yesterday. Unfortunately the hon. member for Houghton is not present at the moment, and I wonder whether I should not leave the points she raised. However, I just want to reply to one point she made which will interest hon. members as well, and that is why we granted a passport to Mr. Venter so that he could go overseas while the possibility existed that he, too, could be involved in this Agliotti inquiry.

As a contrasting example, she mentioned the case of Fugard where we had refused to grant him a passport. In the first place, I want to say that we had no knowledge of Mr. Venter’s action in this connection. The Department of the Interior had no indication that he was involved in this matter. I do not know the man at all. We do not have the opportunity of taking action against persons of whom we know nothing. He received a passport before the inquiry had been completed. In the second place, I want to say that I withdrew Agliotti's passport after I had learnt who he was. At the moment he is without a passport. I think it is important that hon. members have this information. There is no indication that he or Mr. Venter are necessarily guilty of any malpractices. It was done in the case of Agliotti and it would probably have been done in the case of Venter if we had reason to think that he. too, was also involved in this matter in some way or other.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Could the hon. the Minister tell me when Mr. Agliotti’s passport was withdrawn?

Two or three months ago I learnt about the case, who he was and that he had a passport. It was then withdrawn.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District spoke about the question of naturalization and asked why more could not be done in order to naturalize the large number of immigrants entering the country. I just want to tell him that these details are published quarterly. But at the moment the hon. member is not present either, and so I shall leave that point as well. The hon. member also asked how we encouraged people to become South African citizens, but seeing that he is not present at the moment, I shall not reply to that now.

Various questions were also put with regard to the electoral laws. I just want to say that we are working on two different matters as far as the electoral laws are concerned. We are considering the question of simultaneous elections. In addition, we are considering another series of possible amendments to the electoral laws which will be submitted to this House in due course. The co-operation of the United Party in this regard will be requested before the time.

I am pleased the hon. member for Durban Point is here. He and I opposed each other in elections in the past, so I know him very well, as he knows me. For that reason I am sorry he sunk to a low level in this debate by saying the things he said here. This is something we should try to avoid when we are discussing Votes of this nature. He spoke about a person who had approached him. someone who had thought he no longer wanted the woman to whom he was married, to put it tactfully. I leave the question of colour on one side.

That is not the point, it is the fact that I could not obtain a reply.

You knew four or five months ago that the woman had left him and that a search was in progress to find her. Furthermore, the hon. member knows that we are using the services of the police in order to trace her and that they have spent days searching for her in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Durban. For that reason we could not give the hon. member a reply. The Department of the Interior does not have police at its disposal and therefore had to ask another department to assist this voter of the hon. member. But last night the hon. member held up this case as being an example of the “rotten” administration of the Department of the Interior. [Interjections.]

Order!

If I had to reply to the hon. member in the same vein about the kind of administration with which I had to contend in Natal for nine years. with his party’s administration, he ought not to have had the courage to raise matters of this nature.

Can you explain why it is that administratively, apart from the steps taken in consequence of this person’s disappearance, it was possible for the situation to arise which gave rise to these problems, in other words, the double passport and the different identity cards?

After yesterday evening I examined the documents in the light of what the hon. member said yesterday evening and has repeated now. In our documents there is not a single letter which indicates that what you have said, is the case.

I saw them personally.

But you did not say so. How should we know that the person had three identity cards and two passports? How should we know this if the hon. member did not tell us?

Did you not consult the records?

We do not have it in our records. But I do not want to argue with the hon. member about such absolutely trivial things. I said yesterday evening that we handle 2 million cases per year in our department, and that complaints are made about only 0,003 of those cases. But upon my word, the hon. member puts forward a thing like this. I hope the hon. member is going to learn his lession. I do not want to warn him, but if he does so again, I am going to expose to this House examples of bad management I experienced in Natal. I know much more about what went on in the administration there than the hon. member thinks.

Do not threaten me.

I am not threatening you, but I say that if you do this sort of thing again, if you again bring this sort of nonsense to this House, I shall look into the matter and decide whether it is necessary for me to reply at all. I have treated the hon. member with all possible courtesy and I gave him all the information he wanted. However, he sigled out one thing that went wrong during the six months he has been here and brings it to the notice of this House in an endeavour to create the impression that we do not know what is going on in our department.

*The hon. member for Sea Point raised the question of the “Other Coloureds” as a matter which was of importance to them. This has been the accepted position since as far back as 1967. I do not want to go into all the details now, although I have them here.

†I just want to state that Proclamation 123 of 1967, provides for the classification of Coloured persons into certain ethnic and other groups. This was accepted by practically all these groups. These groups are: the Cape Coloured Group, the Malay Group, the Griekwa Group, the Chinese Group, the Indian Group, the other Asiatic and the other Coloured groups. Those groups living outside of the Coloured area in the Cape do not wish to be associated directly with the Cape Coloureds. It was a case in Natal which led to this matter being publicized in the newspapers. I have them here, if the hon. member wishes to see them. The matter was rather exaggerated and presented in a different light.

*If there are hon. members who have points to which I should react, I shall do so with pleasure. Thank you very much for your co-operation which has made it possible to dispose of these matters so expeditiously.

Are you not going to reply on the question of the cost of the Republican Festival?

The cost involved was R1 200 000 However, we are still waiting for the final figures. The amount of R1 200 000 has become available from different sources.

Order! I wish to state that the hon. member for Green Point by way of interjection said that I had stopped hon. members from replying to the hon. the Minister of Transport. What I did was that I ruled that the hon. member for Waterkloof should not repeat arguments already advanced. I wish to make it quite clear that I did not prohibit or stop any hon. member from replying to the hon. the Minister of Transport.

Votes put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move To insert the following Vote to follow Loan Vote Q of Schedule 2:

Schedule 2.

(Chargeable to Loan Account.)

Loan Vote R put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Votes Nos. 3, 8. 14, 19, 21, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 39, 41 and 43 of Schedule 1, Loan Vote A of Schedule 2 and to Schedule 3.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Schedule 1.

(Chargeable to Revenue Account.)

Schedule 2.

(Chargeable to Loan Account.)

M Schedule 3.

(Chargeable to Bantu Education Account.)

Amount chargeable to Revenue Account 2 427 723 000

Amount chargeable to Loan Account 860 390 000

Amount chargeable to Bantu Education Account 57 100 000

Total R3 415 666 000

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 3 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 8:

We have four new subheads under this Vote. We are not surprised to find these items on the Supplementary Estimates. We dealt very fully with the subsidies that will now be given to the provinces in terms of the Second Financial Relations Amendment Bill passed by this House. It is therefore really pointless to have any further discussion on this matter, except to say that we on this side of the House do hope that the new system will not interfere in any way with the autonomy of the four provinces, but that we will allow them to expand according to their own thinking and own needs and that the Government will always be mindful of the fact that decentralization is part of our form of government and that nothing will be done to interfere in any shape or form with the powers of the provinces as they presently exist.

Sir, actually I only want to reconfirm what I said in this regard. It is my conviction—and I think this becomes very apparent from the White Paper—that under the old set-up, which is now coming to an end, the Minister of Finance actually had more scope for interfering, if he wanted to interfere with the autonomy of the provinces, than is the position at present. I think that on that point I can therefore reassure the hon. member completely.

The Cape Provincial Administration, in its Budget requirements which were placed before the hon. the Minister for the current year in order that this subsidy could be established, included in it certain grants-in-aid. This raises the fundamental question which arises from debates which we have had previously and from legislation which has been approved, particularly amendments to the Financial Relations Consolidation Amendment Act of 1945 this year: to what extent now does the public look to Parliament, to the Minister, for the justification of expenditure by way of grantin-aid by the provinces? In the ultimate it is now the Minister’s responsibility and no longer the responsibility of the provinces to determine these grants-in-aid. I do not think there is one of us who is not concerned about the argument or the dispute which is proceeding in the press at the present time in regard to the activities of Capab, the Performing Arts Board in the Cape Province. Included in the figures which have been approved for the Cape Province this year, is a subsidy of R1 350 000 for the Performing Arts Board —for both Capab and Kruik. One realizes, Sir, that a subsidy of this sort is not a paying proposition and one never intends it to be. We on this side obviously do not question the granting of subsidies for the promotion of the arts. It can never be a paying proposition and because it cannot be a paying proposition, it becomes all the more important, as I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree, to see that the subsidy is properly handled and properly expended. I do not at this stage want to raise the merits with regard to this matter but there have been suggestions that there should be an inquiry into the management of Capab and Kruik, and my question to the bon the Minister is, where does that responsibility lie? After all, the decision in principle is a decision of the Administrator; it is a decision of the Administrator-in-Executive, but the very thing against which we warn, and that is that the legislation that we were considering earlier this year affected the autonomy of the provinces, arises not in the principle of the subsidization, not in the question of the amount of the subsidization, but how that money is spent. Sir, where does the responsibility lie? I do hope that the hon. the Minister will indicate whether in subsidies of this sort it is for the Administration to decide what it wants to spend, is that then accepted at face value by the Ministry; or is the position that the Administration must justify to the Minister the details of the expenditure concerned. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will indicate where the ultimate responsibility lies to see that the money is well and properly spent,

Unfortunately I am not in a position to discuss the position of Capab, The only indication I can give at this stage, is that under the new set-up the Cape Provincial Administration is considerably better off than it was under the old set-up, but at this stage I do not have any information in respect of Capab at my disposal.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I have not made myself clear. There is an indication that some inquiry is needed; I am not going into the merits, but who is responsible? Is the Minister responsible for seeing that the money is properly spent, that it is not wasted, or is it the responsibility of the Administrator? How do we apply section 6, of the Financial Relations Act which this House passed, on the Government’s recommendation, without the Minister having to bear responsibility for the manner in which the money is expended?

The position is that once the standard expenditure and the standard revenue and the consequent subsidy have been determined according to the formula, the provinces have every right to decide how they are going to spend that amount, out of their own revenue plus the subsidy. They are not bound by the calculations that were made in terms of the formula.

Sir, I find it astonishing that the hon. member for Green Point has now raised this matter here. He made the vague statement that ” there have been suggestions for an inquiry”. I find it astonishing that he started casting suspicion here on the good management of the Capab enterprise of the Provincial Administration, whilst he himself is one of those who is a champion of virtually absolute autonomy for the provinces. Surely, as an ex-M.E.C. and an ex-member of the Provincial Council he knows very well that the Capab administration falls under the control and administration of our Provincial Administration. After all, he knows very well that the Cape Administrator him self is the honorary chairman of this organization. He did not tell us on what grounds there had been suggestions for an inquiry to be carried out. Is it because of Capab’s maladministration of the funds, or is it because Capab has been presenting certain productions which are not to his taste? He did not tell us why there had been suggestions for an inquiry to be carried out. I see no reason why this House should interest itself in the matter on the strength of either of these grounds. The administration of the finances of that enterprise rests fully with the Provincial Administration and with Capab’s executive, on which responsible members of the Provincial Council are serving and supervising the proper and correct spending of those funds. If the suggestions for an inquiry are based on the standard of the programmes, I think that it is not the function of this House to comment on that either, except if we were to do so because we felt that the Publications Board should have investigated the mailer. Sir, I really do not understand why the hon member for Green Point raised this matter here, for as far as we are concerned, we vote the money; we grant the amount of R1,3 million, and in passing I may just mention that the amount of R1,3 million is also intended to pay for the hire and the use of the Nico Malan Theatre; I think the hon. member will grant me that. A part of that amount is intended for the hire and the use of the Nico Malan Theatre. We vote the money, and it is not for us to exercise control over the Provincial Administration and to say that an amount of 10 cents was misspent here and that an amount of R100 was misspent there. We accept that that body is fully equipped and able to exercise proper control over the money they receive from us for that purpose.

Sir, the hon. member for Bellville—I do not know whether he has done it deliberately—has completely missed the point. The whole point here is that we have been asked these past few months to vote certain moneys to certain departments for them to carry on the business of those departments. Here we are being asked to vote certain moneys to provincial councils for them to carry out their business. But with regard to the other departments, this House has the final control over the expenditure of that money and those departments report back to this House on the expenditure of that money. Now, the question raised by the hon. member for Green Point is: Who controls this money? He raised the issue of Capab merely as an example. If Press reports are to be believed, this is a typical example for the Deputy Minister to take cognizance of. If we are going to vote this money, should we not have control over it? This was the point which was raised during the debate on the Bill. Are we going to control it, or is the province going to control it? If we are being asked to vote the money, we must control it. Of course we find ourselves today in this peculiar situation that the Cape Provincial Administration yesterday closed off its Budget session. Yesterday it voted certain moneys to be expended during this coming year, including the Rl,3 million referred to by the hon. member for Bellville. But where did they get the money? They have not got the money, because we have not voted it yet. What happens if this House today votes this amount down? This is the position which was explained to the hon. the Deputy Minister when we discussed the Bill. This is the principle and this is the question which the hon. member for Green Point has put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. How is this expenditure controlled? Are we going to control it, or the Provincial Council? [Interjections.] This is the question which has been put pertinently to the Deputy Minister, and we have had no reply.

I am astonished at the hon. member for Pietermaritzbuig District, for obviously his whole argumentation amounts to his views being in direct conflict with those of the hon. member for Green Point; for the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Parktown were concerned about the autonomy of the provinces. In fact, in his introductory comments the hon. member for Parktown said he believed that the new set up would not have the effect that this Parliament would interfere with the autonomy of the province. What does this mean? Obviously it means that the province also has the autonomy to spend the funds voted in terms of this legislation for the purposes for which the province wants to spend them. But now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is very concerned about who is going to exercise control over these funds, which are now being voted to the province. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District this question: What is he advocating? Is he advocating that this Parliament… [Interjections.] Oh, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River should rather take some salt, for his comments are very insipid. But I want to know from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District what his point of view is. Once these funds have been voted for the province by Parliament, does he want the province to have control over the spending of those funds, or is he advocating Parliamentary control over the details? In reply to the hon. member for Bellville he said that here in the provincial estimates an amount of approximately R1½ million was voted to Capab, and he wanted to know who was going to exercise control over that expenditure? From that I can only infer that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District actually wants to make the plea, by implication, that we ourselves should take over the autonomy of the provinces in respect of the control over the expenditure of funds in terms of this legislation. That is what he said. Now, hon. members should settle this matter amongst themselves. Who is really the persons who is propagating the valid standpoint of the United Party? Is it the hon. member for Green Point, or the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District? But what is important to me, is that although those hon. members are the apologists for the provincial system, and although the hon. member for Parktown said that decentralized government was part of our form of government, not one of them came forward to express their sincere thanks for the province being enabled to carry out effectively the services for which it is responsible in terms of the Act. Not one of them is prepared to say that the norm which is being determined in respect of financial assistance to provinces, is no longer determined by the means the province happens to have at its disposal, but that the Government is now prepared to grant the province funds in accordance with the needs of the community in the province concerned.

I want to warn the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District against saying things by implication. If the amount of R711 million is granted to the provinces, he must state unambiguously to whom he wishes to give the control over the spending of those funds. Does he want to give it to this Parliament or does he, in accordance with the standpoint taken by the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Green Point, want to vote these funds to the provinces and allow them to spend these funds under their own control, at their discretion?

I want to make a second point. I am astonished at the hon. member for Green Point raising the question of Capab at this stage, for he is actually the hon. member opposite who ought to know how Capab functions, because he has an advantage over the other hon. members on the opposite side, namely the fact that he served on the Executive Committee of the Cape Province. I can only infer that he is not prepared to say what the real situation is. He claimed that there was a suggestion of an inquiry into Capab’s activities. After all, he knows that in the Provincial Council his party came forward with a real motion of urgent importance on Capab’s activities, and why is he keeping quiet about it? The only inference is that he is keen to dissociate himself from what was done by his colleagues in the Provincial Council. Secondly, he has been keeping quiet about the facts because, I think, he does not want to furnish them. For the hon. member is aware that the board of Capab, which is nominated by the Minister of National Education, is an independent board, and that it obtains its funds from, inter alia, four sources. Firstly, it obtains its funds from the Central Government in the form of a direct subsidy under the former Department of Cultural Affairs, now known as the Department of National Education. Secondly, he knows that the various provincial councils vote certain amounts to their performing arts from their own funds; thirdly, that certain local authorities grant funds to Capab, and, fourthly, that Capab obtains funds from revenue which it, in turn, obtains by way of admission fees. Therefore, it is important that, in referring to Capab and to the voting of funds, we should actually take cognizance, with appreciation, of the edifying work done by our cultural organizations. But, no, it is in keeping with the general pattern displayed by the hon. members opposite for suspicion to be cast on everything which is done in our country by the Government or by the provinces. It is therefore not astonishing that their deputy leader in the Provincial Council started a boycott movement in respect of the opening of the Nico Malan Theatre. That, in turn, is in keeping with the dualism which we find among hon. members opposite on every occasion, namely to enjoy the benefit on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to disparage and besmirch.

If I can ask the hon. member for False Bay to listen, because perhaps he was not listening when I spoke originally, I will come back to the problem I raised which has resulted from the legislation which this House has passed.

I have asked the Deputy Minister to tell us so that the country can know and we can know what the position is as the result of this legislation in regard to the control of certain expenditure. We have made our position clear and it remains clear that we believe in the autonomy of the provinces, it is for this reason that we opposed various aspects of the legislation. But this grant now that we are asked to approve is in terms of the new section 6 of the 1945 Act, and I want to read the final words of subsection (3)—

I raised the matter of Capab, of the Performing Arts Board, as an example of an organization which will receive a subsidy which has been approved in principle by the hon. the Minister, because he takes the final decision as to the financial requirements of the province. Quite correctly, when the question was raised in the province as I have read the newspapers, I do not know the details of the debate—it appeared that an inquiry was necessary into the management of that organization. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if the ultimate responsibility is his, must the request for an inquiry be directed at him or, having approved of an overall sum of money, will the decision of whether or not an inquiry is to be held be in the hands of the province? I have asked that question pertinently, because it high lights what we were concerned about when discussing the legislation earlier, namely that the whole approach resulted in a diminution of the autonomy of the provinces. I hope and have hoped that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is handling this matter, will stand up and say that how this money is spent, once it has been approved, is in the hands of the provinces. The only time the hon. the Minister would be concerned, would be when he consults with the Administrator concerning the Budget for the next year. He could then ask the Administrator if the subsidy should be changed. According to a letter of criticism in the newspaper concerning what is being done, it is suggested that there is a degree of incompetence and that there are wrong doings, criticism Jed by one of the M.E.C.s himself. I want to raise a simple question: Does the responsibility remain, as I would prefer it to, with the province or is the hon. the Minister now concerned because of the amendment to this Act?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is upset because he has not yet been given a reply in regard to the point he made, whereas the Budget of the Cape Provincial Administration has already been finalized and this House is being requested to vote the money. To my mind this is really not as important as the hon. member wants to suggest. What would the position have been if this new set-up had not come into operation? He attributed this to the new set-up which had now come into operation. In that case these subsidies would not yet have been voted either. The Appropriation Bill has not been finalized as yet. In other words, these moneys have not been voted either. I assume that the Cape Provincial Administration has reasonably good grounds for accepting that this Parliament will not break its faith with the province. The same situation probably cropped up on many occasions in the past. Over all these years this Parliament has accepted obligations in respect of the financial position of the provinces. Therefore, I think that the provinces have every right to accept that Parliament will meet that obligation.

As regards the other matter that was raised by the hon. member for Green Point. I have now obtained more information in regard to Capab. information which I unfortunately did not have at my disposal earlier on. The position seems to be that the Department of National Education has a certain measure of control over Capab in the sense that it exercises control over the Performing Arts Board. The position is that the amount of R1 430 000 was voted on the Vote of the Department. On its part the Cape Provincial Administration also makes a contribution to it. In other words, there is a kind of joint control as far as this matter is concerned.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No, 14:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to obtain certain information from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in regard to the amount of R7 million under sub-head O, which is described as a contribution to the Wool Commission in respect of the stabilization of the price of wool. This is the first time we have been afforded an opportunity of discussing this amount. I should also like to know from the Deputy Minister whether this amount represents half of the supported price, which was determined in order to increase the price of wool to 28c. Is this a corresponding amount paid to the Wool Commission to cover all their activities in regard to the stabilization of wool, or is it concerned with wool purchased by them? In other words, how was this amount of R7 million determined? I appreciate that this is a final amount for this particular financial year, but we should like to know how it was calculated. I think the supported price paid to farmers at the moment, over and above what they are already being paid in order that the price may be increased to 28c, emails expenditure amounting to approximately R15 million. The Minister indicated that the Government was going to be a full partner this year when it came to the stabilization of wool, and it is not clear to us whether this amount of R7 million represents half of the total supported price, or whether it is going to be granted to the Wool Commission in regard to all their activities, to spend as they deem fit.

The hon. member for East London City is correct. The amount which the Government had in mind, was calculated to bring, along with the contributions made by the Wool Commission, the average price of wool up to 28c. The hon. member will know how quickly the Wool Commission’s funds were exhausted. The Government said that it would act as a partner in this regard, and the contributions would be calculated more or less, but not exactly, on a 50-50 basis. We may not act on the assumption that the State is going to contribute exactly 50 per cent, for the next wool-clip may be a rather small one owing to circumstances. Therefore one cannot work on the basis of a definite amount. Having regard to all these facts, the Government felt that R7 million, along with the amount which the Wool Commission was going to contribute from its own funds in order to ensure this stable price, would be adequate. However, it has not been laid down exactly how this amount is to be applied. I assume that it will be applied in such a way that the producer will fetch an average price of 28c.

Mr. Chairman, I notice under sub-head H that an amount of R1 309 000 has to be voted in respect of an interest equalization contribution. Is this in respect of the Land Bank only, or does it also relate to private financial institutions?

It relates only to the Land Bank. It is in respect of the amounts they have allocated to co-operatives, etc. The hon. member will remember that R10 million was granted at a certain rate, and that this amount was later increased to R15 million, to cover the erection of silos, etc. Funds have to be obtained from the private sector at rates varying from 8 to 9 per cent, and those rates are then subsidized by this interest equalization contribution.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 19:

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. the Minister of Tourism is not present. One would have thought that the Minister concerned with this Vote would have taken the trouble to be present. I have no option but to put my question to the Minister of Finance. A supplementary amount of R273 000 has to be voted in respect of the membership fee and a contribution towards the expenses of the Southern African Regional Tourism Council (SARTOC). At this stage we do not know at all what SARTOC is. We do not know how many countries are involved here and we do not know which countries are involved. We do not know whether this is calculated on a percentage basis or not. I shall be glad if the Minister of Finance can give us the information in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Tourism could not be present this afternoon. On his behalf, I should like to give the following information: This particular amount has resulted from the ministerial conference on regional tourism in Southern Africa, which was held in August last year. At this conference it was decided to create a body known as the South African Regional Tourism Council (SARTOC). The object of this council is to promote tourism in all ways in Southern Africa. I think hon. members will agree that it is a very desirable object and that all countries in Southern Africa who want to co-operate in this field should become members of the council and contribute towards it on a cooperative basis in order to promote tourism in every possible way. I do not think I could give the final list of the members concerned, but it affects all the countries close to us in the Southern Hemisphere. The names I have here include Botswana, Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius. Mozambique. Rhodesia, South Africa and Swaziland. Possibly Malagassy could also be included. The matter has not yet been finalized. We know that some of these countries have not yet accepted membership and others may still in the future become members. The countries I have mentioned are expected eventually to become members of this tourist organization. I could read the terms of reference, the ideals and objects of this council to the House, but I think they will be clear to hon. members. The council’s object is to promote tourism.

The funds required by this organization will be derived from its members, as well as other funds they may procure. A formula has been calculated according to which the funds are to be obtained. Fifty per cent of the annual budget of the or-organization are to be spread equally amongst the various member countries, and the other fifty per cent has to be paid in by the various countries on the basis of their gross national product. The organization has not yet been in existence for a full year, so that they do not know exactly what the costs are going to be, but we feel that if the total costs of running the organization are in the region of R½ million, South Africa’s contribution, based on the formula I have mentioned, will be approximately R273 000.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Minister for the information he has given us at this stage, but I notice that this amount is in respect of the membership fee and a contribution towards the expenses of SARTOC. I accept that as far as the membership fees are concerned, all countries are in a similar position, and that they will all pay the same membership fee, but what is the position as far as the contributions are concerned? Does this amount represent a contribution from the Republic of South Africa calculated on a percentage basis?

No, I thought I had explained the position clearly. The percentage contribution is for membership. I said that the cost of running the organization will be in the region of R½ million. Now where is that R½ million to come from? The R½ million has to be contributed by the member states according to the formula I have already described. South Africa is, of course, financially speaking, the strongest of all these countries. Half of the cost of running the organization is distributed on an equal basis, and the other half on the basis of the gross national product of the various countries. That is the cost of membership, which we contribute to the organization for carrying out its duties.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 21 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 24 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 29 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 32 put and agreed to,

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 33 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 34 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 39 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 41 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 43 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Loan Vote A put and agreed to.

Amendment to Vote “Bantu Education” put and agreed to.

Schedule I, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, here we again have the usual “piebald Bill” which marks the end of every session. It is generally known as the “omnibus measure”. It does not contain only one principle, but quite a number. Consequently I feel myself obliged to explain the various clauses to hon. members.

The provisions of sections 2 and 2 bis of the Indians Relief Act, 1914, which are being repealed by means of clauses 1 and 2, relate to the registration of marriages in accordance with some or other Indian religion or, as generally referred to, Indian faith marriages. As hon. members know, the registration of such marriages entails that a lawful marriage is established between the parties, from which all the consequences follow which follow from an otherwise lawfully recognized marriage. It is a fact that Indians have always shied away from the Western form of marriage because of the complicated procedures preceding such marriages with which they were unfamiliar. With the amendment of the Marriage Act, 1961, by the Marriage Amendment Act of 1970, in which provision was made for the simplification of the solemnizing of marriages, our procedures are now more acceptable to the Indians. Consequently, there is no further reason for the continued existence of these sections and they may be repealed. An additional factor is that with a view to the recompilation of the population register, which will also include the marriage register. and the contemplated introduction of the identity document for which provision was made in the Population Registration Amendment Act of 1970, only one procedure will be followed in the registration of marriages. I may add that the repeal of the provisions in question have the support of the Indian Council.

Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6, result from a recommendation made by the Borckenhagen Committee, which recommendation, as has already been announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance during his Budget speech on 31st March, 1971, has been accepted by the Government, i.e. that the State accepts full financial responsibility for the therapeutic services in regard to communicable diseases. As we also announced at the time, this will entail an additional payment of approximately R1½ million per annum to local authorities. At present local authorities are subsidized in terms of the National Health Act on a basis of seven-eighths of the approved net costs of the services in question.

The amendment in clause 7 makes provision for an expansion of the provisions of section 115 of the National Health Act to include objects which are not at present covered by the section. It was recently disclosed that certain imported articles intended to be used in the preparation or serving of foodstuffs contained harmful elements to such a degree that they constituted a health hazard. Owing to the limited scope of the section as it reads at present it is necessary to expand the powers conferred by the section.

The laws mentioned in clause 8 are being repealed because the provisions there of have been included in other laws. In this connection I refer hon. members to the Advanced Technical Education Act. 1967 (Act No. 40 of 1967); the Advanced technical Education for Indians Act, 1968 (Act No. 12 of 1968) and the Associated Institutions Provident Fund Bill (VW. 30’71) which was introduced this session.

Section 10 of the Iron and Steel Industry Act, 1928, provides that the Board of Directors of the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation Limited or— as it is generally known—Iscor. may raise a loan not exceeding a specified amount by the creation and issue of debentures in order to make provision for the moneys required for the capital expenditure of the Corporation. In addition, section 10 bis provides that the Board may, with the approval of the State President, raise further loans by the creation and issue of debentures. Owing to the scope of the Corporations' activities and the extent of its capital requirements. it is necessary to enable it to consider other forms of acceptable loan offers. This is being done by means of clause 9.

As far as clause 10 is concerned. Sir, section 6 of the Liquor Act. 1928, already makes provision for various exemptions from the holding or application for licences in terms of the provisions of that Act. In this way, for example, any person who on the authority of the Minister of Defence or the Commissioner of Police or the Commissioner of Prisons sells liquor in a specified place to the members of the Defence Force or the Police Force or the Prisons Department, is thus exempted. Owing to the closed activities of the Bureau of State Security, it is also desirable, as far as liquor facilities for its members are concerned, to establish separate facilities for them and for those in their company. In addition it is also necessary to make shopping facilities, similar to those which members of the service departments receive today, available as a fringe benefit for its members. In order then not to make a distinction between those who operate liquor or shop facilities for the benefit of the members of the other existing institutions and those of the Bureau, it is necessary to confer on it the same privileges in regard to exemption from licence fees, and so on. Exemption from licences under the Liquor Act is being granted by means of clause 10. As far as a shop of the Bureau is concerned, I refer hon. members to clause 28. The provisions of that clause coincide for the most part with the provisions of section 149 of the Defence Act, 1957, section 29 of the Police Act. 1958 and section 88 of the Prisons Act, 1959.

The amendment in clause 11 is being effected to prevent an evasion of the provisions of section 14 of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930. That section prohibits any person from transferring to a vehicle other than the vehicle referred to therein, or ceding to another person, a badge or motor carrier certificate issued by the National Transport Commission or a local road transportation board, without the consent of the Commission or the local board in question. Now, sometimes it happens that existing companies holding motor carrier certificates to convey passengers and goods are taken over by persons simply through the acquisition of shares in such companies. The National Transport Commission and local road transportation boards can do nothing to control or to prevent the position. This clause now makes provision for the necessary powers of control. I can just mention that the amendments do not create a new principle. A similar provision already occurs in section 17 (5) and (5) of the Air Services Act, 1949 (Act No. 51 of 1949), in regard to the allocation of air transportation licences.

The amendments in clauses 12. 13 and 18 give effect to a recent announcement made by the Minister of Labour during the discussion of his Vote, i.e. that as from 1972. Republic Day, will be an annual paid holiday for all mine and factory workers instead of only every five years.

As far as clause 14 is concerned, it sometimes happens that access to the records of a court may be desired for research purposes. In magistrates’ courts such access can only be obtained on payment of the prescribed fees—which amount to 30 cents for every 100 records. Since access to the records of a court for research purposes entail the rendering of services of a less general scope by the court officers in question, and since the research is intended for academic purposes, researchers are, in terms of this clause, being exempted from the payment of the prescribed fees.

The amendment in clause 15 results in an expansion of the membership of the Public Accountants and Auditors Board. As is provided in paragraph (a) of the clause, the person who is appointed shall be a person resident in the district of Johannesburg, or an adjoining district. The reason for this is that the bulk of the activities of the Board take place in Johannesburg and there is a considerable work-load on the two members in the Board appointed by the Transvaal Society. Consequently the Board has requested that an amendment be affected as provided in this clause. The amendments in the rest of the clause and in clause 16, are of a consequential nature.

The amendment in clause 17, confers upon the Controller and Auditor General the powers to proceed with the auditing of the accounts of certain bodies in the Territory, such as the Meat Trade Control Board of South-West Africa and the Dairy Industry Control board, whose functions relate to scheduled matters as referred to in the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969. The reason for this is that in the light of the 1969 Act to which I have just referred doubts exist in regard to the validity of certain statutory provisions of the Territory which entrust the powers of auditing to the Controller and Auditor-General. This amendment now establishes the position beyond any doubt.

As far as clause 19 is concerned, as hon. members know, no female may perform any work at night in connection with the operations of a mine unless she holds a responsible position of a manageress or of a technical nature, or renders medical or health services, and so on. Owing to the shortage of competent manpower which is being experienced, provision is being made in this clause to grant exemption from this prohibition to a mine or industry in cases where special circumstances warrant it. In the main the provision corresponds to section 54 (1) (a) read in conjunction with section 19 (1) (e), of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Before business was suspended, I was explaining the different clauses and I had disposed of clause 19.

Clause 20 is intended to expand the powers, as referred to in section 89 of the Defence Act, so as to prohibit as well the admission of persons to any place on or in which armaments are being manufactured or repaired or on or in which any function of the Armaments Board or the Armaments Development and Production Corporation of South Africa, Limited, is being carried out.

The amendment in clause 21 will exempt a divisional council from being required to pay the costs in connection with any alteration or removal of telephone routes which is necessitated by any roadworks by such a council. In the other provinces the provincial administrations are not liable to pay the costs in connection with telephone route alterations or removals which are necessitated by their roadworks. Since a roadwork which a divisional council undertakes in the Cape Province would in the other provinces be undertaken by the provincial administrations, the distinction thus made in regard to costs between the administrations and divisional councils is being eliminated by this clause.

Clauses 22 and 23 are self-explanatory. In the light of the fact that the pension benefits of various groups are improved from time to time, and in the light of the fact that the salaries of officiating judges have been increased considerably since 1st January of this year, it is felt that an increase in the pensions payable to judges who retired prior to 1st January. 1971, as is provided in this clause, is justified. I can just mention, Sir, that an increase in pensions of judges was last effected in 1968.

The amendment in clause 24 is to provide for situations for which provision is not at present being made in the Community Development Act, 1966. In terms of section 15 of that Act, the Community Development Board is competent, with the approval of the Minister of Community Development, to make payments in respect of any goodwill value which may be attached to any profession or business which is likely to be lost as a result of the person carrying on that profession or business having to cease carrying on that profession or business in consequence of any proclamation under the Group Areas Act, or any steps taken under that Act. Now it sometimes happens that a person is not necessarily obliged as a result of such a proclamation to cease carrying on his profession or business because he is a member of the group to which the proclamation refers. It also happens that subsequently, under the Community Development Act, the property of such person in the group area in question has to be expropriated with a view to urban renewal and resettlement of the area. The persons in question are then obliged to close their business and vacate the premises so that the building can be demolished and the area replanned. Such owners then lose their goodwill value in that they have to cease carrying on their profession or business, not as a result of the proclamation under the Group Areas Act, or as a result of steps taken under that Act. but as a result of the fact that they have to cease carrying on their business or profession in consequence of steps taken under the Community Development Act. The Community Development Board is consequently not competent to make payments in respect of any goodwill value lost as a result of the fact that the person in question had to cease carrying on his profession or business. The amendment in paragraph (h) of clause 22 will cover the cases I have mentioned. As regards the amount which is paid for the lost goodwill value, the basis of calculation is being brought into line with section 38 of the Housing Act, 1966, which was amended during this session of Parliament. As regards the payment of compensation to the person who ceases carrying on his profession or business in a group area is concerned, as a result of expropriation under the Community Development Act, the most beneficial calculation on the basis mentioned in the clause is made depending on whether the highest net profit was made before the date of the proclamation in terms of the Group Areas Act or prior to the date on which such person ceased carrying on his business or profession as a result of expropriation under the Community Development Act. The provision is being deemed to be with retrospective effect as from 1st April 1969. because expropriations have since that date been made in terms of the Community Development Act. which could have resulted in deprivation.

The amendment in clause 25 results in an expansion of the matters with regard to which regulations may be promulgated in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969. This expansion is necessary to keep the particulars which have to be included in the essential firearms register correct and up to date, and to control the transportation of arms and ammunition, particularly to remote areas.

Sir, the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation and a burgher company have already been exempted by section 6 (1) of Act 84 of 1969 from obtaining the consent of certain bodies to acquire immovable property or an interest in immovable property in the Rehoboth Gebiet. Now, in addition, it is also being required in terms of the statutory provisions to which reference is made in clause 26, that each certificate of registered title shall contain a condition that no alienation, hypothecation, lease or other encumbrance of land in the Rehoboth Gebiet may take place unless the consent of certain bodies have been obtained. To make the exemption which is already granted by section 6 (1) of the Act to the Corporation effective, the amendment in clause 26 is being effected.

The amendment in clause 27 will confer on the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation powers in regard to the provision of accommodation for its officials and employees. As employer the Corporation must compete on the labour market with private enterprises and bodies which do in fact offer these fringe benefits and conditions of service, and in South-West Africa in particular the provision of housing and housing benefits us of special importance, This also brings the rowers of the Corporation into line with those of the Coloured Development Corporation and the Bantu Investment Corporation.

As far as the amendment in clause 29 is concerned, a proclamation was issued on 11th June, 1948. in terms of which the Constitution of the Kakamas Labour Colony was substituted. In paragraph 18 that Constitution provided that settlers and plot-owners could under certain circumstances receive ownership over their plots and building sites. In terms of section 19 of the Constitution every deed of transfer was however subject to certain conditions effected by way of notarial agreement against the title deed of the property in question. In 1968 paragraph 19 of the Constitution was repealed by Proclamation No. 214, as a result of which the transfer of sites was no longer subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The Management Board of the colony resolved that consent would be granted, unconditionally, to cancellation of conditions endorsed before 1968 to every owner who made application. However, to effect such a cancellation, the owner must enter into a further agreement with the Management Board which has to be registered the Deeds Office. The amendment in clause 29 will eliminate such a cumbersome procedure and unnecessary expense for the owners in question.

The transitory nature of one’s presence in this House makes me feel that I ought not to use the word “historic” in describing this occasion, but it certainly is, in my time in this place, a most remarkable occasion to have a General Law Amendment Bill to which we have no objection whatsoever, a General Law Amendment Bill which furthermore has clauses in it dealing with BOSS to which we have no objection whatsoever. Indeed, there is a provision that nothing in the Liquor Act relating to the application for or holding of licences shall apply to the canteen which the members of BOSS are now going to enjoy. I am sure that this will he welcomed by the members of BOSS and I am sure that they are going to be very happy that there is no cause whatsoever for the Police to make any sort of investigation in regard to carrying on this canteen. The only difficulties they may have is identifying the persons who are entitled to enjoy these privileges to each other. But that is no real difficulty. We are in fact very glad to see the amendments to the Public Health Act in terms of which the local authorities, for the services they perform in terms of that Act, will now receive all their expenditure and not, as it was before, only a part. We are pleased that the provisions relating to the canteens are there, as they should be in respect of any other service. We are delighted to see that the judges who retired before the new benefits were available are to receive an increase and we are very gratified to see that the Government is following our advice in regard to arms and ammunition. But lest you think. Sir, that I am in a state of euphoria, let me say in conclusion that it is about time these things were done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 11:

This clause is one to which we do not object, in so far as we do not intend to vote against it since the logic of the argument given in favour of this amendment is something with which one cannot quarrel. But it is a symptom rather than a cure which is being dealt with here. The evil to which the hon. the Minister of Justice referred, but which is really a matter for the Department of Transport, is a symptom of dissatisfaction with the present provision. Therefore people try to evade the provisions of the existing Act. They attempt to evade it because of the method of application, the attitude of the Railways in its objections and the attitude of the commission in issuing certificates to carriers. The result is that we have here, by legislation, created something which has led to an illegal business. It is like I.D.B. Carrier certificates are like diamonds. They are like gold. Carrier certificates are something which cannot normally be come by in the ordinary course and so people resort to any subterfuge which they can in order to obtain by subterfuge what they are unable to obtain directly and as a right. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, whom I know is the one who deals with this aspect, whether this clause, which is now being introduced and which will be passed, is not justification for a complete review of the whole Act which we are being asked to amend. This clause is fundamental to the problems which arise from the application of the Act. People who presently follow a common practice will now become criminals if they continue with that practice, because they will be prevented by this amendment from obtaining ownership of companies and thereby obtaining ownership of carrier certificates. In the light of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s recognition of the problem and what it leads to, I want to ask him to consider going into this whole question during next year or during the recess and perhaps appointing a commission or referring the matter to a Select Committee of this Parliament. Although we are not opposing this clause, as we opposed a similar clause in the corresponding Act controlling civil aviation, we are going to accept this clause in this Bill. However, we are not happy about the present situation which has led, as I have said, to offences. Officials of departments are tempted to commit corruption and hence all the evils which are tied up with the application of the Act as a whole. We accept this amendment with the reservation that we feel that this is not the answer, but that the answer is a complete review of the original Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point wants to link a whole series of matters to this one amendment. He wants to make out a case that this is an example which illustrates that there is dissatisfaction with the decisions of the National Transport Commission, even to the extent, according to him, that corrupt practices occur. I want to say at once that his approach is entirely wrong. In the first instance, he wants to involve the Railways by insinuating that the National Transport Commission is protecting the transport of the Railways.

Of course.

This is not so. On the contrary, the Railways itself has requested a certain relaxation in the issue of carrier certificates. This is the fact of the matter. Act No. 39 of 1930 was placed on the Statute Book in order to provide, in the first place, that the local transportation board would be the controlling body for granting or refusing licences. If any dispute were to arise, the National Transport Commission, as an autonomous body, would be the body to which a person could go on appeal. The fact of the matter is that the basic principle from which Parliament proceeded was that control over the issue of carrier certificates was to be exercised by the National Transport Commission together with the local road transportation boards. Now the position is that bodies and persons have found a loophole in this Act in that they simply purchase the shares of a company. In this way one finds one large monopolistic organization buying up the shares of the various companies and building up a large empire to gain control over private transport as a whole. The Act contains no provision for the local road transportation boards or the National Transport Commission to prevent anything of this nature from happening. In Act No. 51 of 1949. i.e. the Act regulating the issue of permits to air services, there is no similar loophole. That Act does contain a section which enables the National Transport Commission to exercise its authority if there is any takeover of shares or if shares change hands. This amendment is being effected simply to bring this Act into line with that Act. with which all of us are satisfied. In other words, we are simply trying to achieve in practice the original object of that Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister must admit that this amendment to the Act constitutes direct interference with the principle of free trade. It interferes with one’s right to sell one’s business undertaking or one's shares or to purchase shares or business undertakings.

But here we are concerned with a business undertaking which is subject to a licence of the National Transport Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I admit that. That is why we on this side of the House are not opposing this clause. However, we are doing so reluctantly, because this interferes with private trade, with the whole principle of free enterprise.

We have not decided on interference. We have simply said that no person may transport without a licence.

It is an extension of that principle, because now a person first has to ensure that he will be able to obtain transfer of a permit before he buys a firm. In other words, he has to reveal his plan. By doing so he is revealing his plan to his opposition as well. Otherwise he has to run a risk. We realize and we accept the problem of monopolies which exclude the small man. For example, I know that in Durban in my constituency there are complaints concerning the existence of a monopoly, “closed shops”, as they call them, and that existing interests are keeping the door closed to any competition from newcomers. But that competition may be allowed by means of granting additional certificates.

It is bound up with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation deals with the consequences of the refusal of certificates. I say a situation is existing, even in my own constituency, of people saying that they cannot obtain such certificates. Consequently they have to try to get in at the back door by obtaining shares in companies which do have certificates. So this clause is the direct consequence of the policy being followed in the application of the Act. There is no point in the hon. the Deputy Minister adopting a pious attitude by speaking of monopolies. This is not the solution. This is undesirable interference which is essential because of worse malpractices and more serious problems. However, I make another plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to see this matter in isolation, but as part of a larger problem. Malpractices occur not only with regard to the certificates, but also with regard to the use of those certificates. The hon. the Deputy Minister will not deny that there has in fact been corruption on a large scale in connection with road transportation. He cannot deny that.

Not in connection with the granting of licences.

But what is causing the malpractices? What is causing the corruption? What is causing the situation when carriers are prepared to pay large sums of money to officials if there is no need to do so, if it is not a paying proposition for them to pay money in order to evade the provisions of the Act? Instead of tackling the fundamental problem, we are seeking to close the loophole. The problem as a shole we are leaving untouched. My plea is that we should not just try to close a loophole. It is necessary to do so, but we should look for the reasons why that loophole is being used. We should examine and see the problem as a whole and not as one small part of a total problem.

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister will not agree. The Government never agrees with practical proposals. The Government believes it is always right, but in this case it is wrong. We are supporting this clause in order to prevent and counteract more serious trouble, but we are not happy with the background against which this clause is being proposed.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, this clause highlights the acute shortage of manpower we have in industry today. This is particularly so in heavy industry. The hon. the Minister now asks us to amend the Mines and Works Act so that females can be allowed to work in shifts covering a 24 hour period, if the hon. the Minister is going to do this, he should see to it that special regulations be implemented for the employment of women over these long stretches. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister cannot find skilled or semiskilled males to do this work, he has to make sure that the females who are stepping in to do the work which would normally be done by males, are protected. What protection must he give them? Firstly I would say that no woman should normally be expected to work after 6 o’clock in the evening, the time one would expect the second shift to start. She should not be allowed to work for more than six hours per night shift. I think that is the first provision we should make. I also want to say that no pregnant woman should be allowed to work in other than daylight working hours. I would also like to suggest that no married women should be allowed to work at night. That means that if 6 o’clock is going to be the hour for the second shift to come on duty, no married woman should be allowed to work after 6 o'clock. She can then be home with her family after 6 p.m.

This provision to give industrialists or mining companies the opportunity to employ women for these stretches, should not in any event result in victimization of any woman as far as the job is concerned. It should not be obligatory for women to work overtime if they want to keep their job. The overtime should be done by only those women who volunteer to do overtime. I feel that it should in all cases exclude married women from working at night, especially those who have young children at home. I feel that it should definitely exclude pregnant women from overtime work or shift work I do not know how these suggestions can be brought into the Act and whether the Minister can do this by way of regulation or not, But I would like to hear what the hon. the Minister feels about this. Bearing in mind the type of work these people have to do, I think we must see to it that the women should have the opportunity of refusing overtime without losing their jobs.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville has pointed out a few important aspects concerning the employment and the working hours of women. Now I should like to tell the hon. member that what we are doing here is merely to bring the Mines and Works Act into line with the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act. In terms of that Act we already have the position that the Minister of Labour may grant certain exemptions with regard to a specific factory or building work. Certain restrictions and conditions are imposed by him when he grants such exemptions. In other words, wide experience has been gained as far as this matter is concerned. Now the situation has arisen, however, that a place such as Iscor or Vanderbijlpark falls under the Mines and Works Act, whereas in actual fact it is nothing but a factory. They have already carried out those experiments with the employment of women, for example as crane drivers, but only on day shift. Night shift means half an hour after sundown up to half an hour before sunrise.

Now, with the support of the trade unions, they have requested the inclusion of this provision in the Mines and Works Act as well, in order to meet the situation. I shall definitely exercise great cape, in the light of what has been said here, in the light of the experience of my colleague, the Minister of Labour, and in the light of investigations into the specific matters, in order to satisfy myself that such restrictions and conditions will he imposed as will take into account the important aspects with regard to the social and the married status of the women, the children in the family, their ages, as well as facilities for women at the places of employment. Now I may just say that these facilities have already been established in the case of Iscor, and it will greatly relieve their situation if we are in a position to grant them exemptions, subject to such restrictions and conditions as envisaged by the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have raised certain questions in connection with this clause, which in fact substantiates the argument of this side of the House when the original Bill was introduced and when we opposed the original clause; but we do not have the Minister of Community Development here to discuss the matter with him.

The hon. member for Green Point has been given certain assurances; the Minister has been excused.

I understand the hon. the Minister has been excused, but it makes it difficult in other respects. We want to discuss clauses affecting labour, but the hon. the Minister of Labour is not here. We cannot discuss a matter unless the Minister concerned with that particular clause is here to answer the questions. However, if the hon. member for Green Point has been satisfied on this clause, I will then leave it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

The Chartered Accountants Designation (Private) Act was piloted through this House during 1927 by Adv. C. R. Swart, the hon. member for Ladybrand and later our highly-esteemed first President of the Republic of South Africa.

The existing Act s English text was signed by the Governor-General. The Afrikaans equivalent of the English designation and/ or title is not quoted in the English text. This was a very unfortunate oversight. The position is therefore that neither the designation ” Chartered Accountant” nor the title “G.R. (S.A.)’’ is protected at present. The danger is that persons who are not qualified, or who are suspended accountants, can unlawfully used the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the title ” G.R. (S.A.)” without it being possible to take action against them. You can understand how the public could be misled or even deceived by this.

And then there is the further injustice, i.e. that the Afrikaners in the accountancy profession cannot use their rightful title in their mother tongue, but must use the English equivalent of “C.A. (S.A.)”. What this amounts to is that the Afrikaner’s language is being undervalued.

The National Council of Chartered Accountants of South Africa are anxious to have this anomaly eliminated. and asked and authorized me to bring this Bill before the hon. House, as I am now doing.

Every province of the Republic of South Africa has its own Society. Since 1927 the names of all four Provincial Societies have been changed. A considerable number of accountants have been endeavouring, for a long time, to establish a National Association, instead of the present Provincial Societies. The National Council of Chartered Accountants of South Africa has already taken steps to give effect to this wish of the majority of accountants.

The insertion of the words: “… or of any successor/s in title to any of the aforementioned Societies” in section 1, is to make provision for possible future development.

The penal provision of R100 is being increased to R500 to bring it in line with present-day custom.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. As the hon. member for Sunnyside has said, the object of the Bill is to protect certain words for the accounting profession, and is in the interests of the profession itself and the public outside.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to say thank you for the Opposition’s support in this respect, and I should also like to express my thanks to you for having allowed me to deal with this measure as a public Bill, although it retains the form of a private Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Hon. members will recall that the Minister in his Budget speech earlier this year announced that it was the intention, inter alia, to construct two guaranteed railway lines, one in the northern Cape from Groveput to a terminus on the farm Vogelstruisbult and the other in the Transvaal from Beestekraal to a terminus on the farm Vogelfontein. The Minister also announced the proposed construction of a new line from Arnot power station to Wonderfontein station to link up with the private line from Broodsnyersplaas to Arnot power station. As will be recalled, parliamentary approval for the acquisition of this section of line has since been obtained.

The Railways and Harbours Board has examined the proposals and has recommended the construction of the proposed lines. As full details of these lines are furnished in the Report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which has already been tabled, my remarks will be brief.

I will now deal with the proposed line from Groveput to Vogelstruisbult. Anglo-Transvaal Consolidated Investment Company has requested that a guaranteed line of main-line standard be constructed over a distance of approximately 48 kilometres from Groveput, an interloop in the vicinity of Prieska, to a terminus on the farm Vogelstruisbult for the conveyance of zinc and copper concentrates and pyrite to be mined on the farm owned by Prieska Copper Mines (Pty.) Limited for export and local processing. It will take two years to construct the proposed line at a cost of some R4,8 million. Bearing in mind the economic advantages which the mining of the deposits concerned holds in store for the country as a whole, it is considered that justification exists for the construction of the desired line. The agreement between the Administration and the company, which forms an annexure to the Construction Bill, will apply for a period of 20 years and in terms thereof the company will compensate the Railway Administration within the initial 20 years of the existence of the line for the capital invested in the line as well as for any interest accruing thereon. The Administration will during this period also be indemnified against operating losses on the line. Apart from the foregoing, provision is made in the agreement for a fund to be built up during the period of 20 years which, after expiry of this period, will be used to defray any losses which may be sustained on the working of the line during the ensuing period of ten years. The company is, therefore, liable to indemnify the Administration directly and indirectly against operating losses for a period of 30 years.

Pretoria Portland Cement Company Ltd., has approached the Railway Administration in regard to the construction of a guaranteed line of approximately 14 kilometres between Beestekraal station— the terminal station on the Brits-Beestekraal railway line—and the farm Vogelfontein for the conveyance of limestone which the company intends mining on the farm for its cement factories at Hercules (near Pretoria) and Jupiter (near Johannesburg).

The company has undertaken to construct the line to departmental standards at its own cost and on completion thereof to hand it over to the Administration who will then exploit the line as a guaranteed line. This offer is acceptable, especially as the Administration will not be called upon to invest any capital in the construction of the line and the Railways will not be able physically to undertake the work departmentally at present. The estimated cost of the construction of the line is R2 million and it will he completed within approximately 1 ½ years.

The guarantee period will, also in this case, extend over a period of 20 years, but in terms of the agreement, which forms an annexure to the Bill, the Administration will be indemnified against operating losses for a period of 30 years. Since there are indications that other traffic will also be convened over the line it will not be reasonable to expect of the company to grant the line to the Administration free of compensation; provision has accordingly been made in the guarantee agreement for the company to be compensated for the capital invested. The Railways will, however, not gain financially from the exploration of the new line until such time as the capital invested by the company has been accounted for.

The existing line between Beestekraal and Brits is being strengthened primarily for the company’s traffic; due regard was also had to the company’s traffic demands in the improvement of the carrying capacity of the line between Brits and Pretoria.

I now come to the proposed line between Arnot power station and Wonder-fontein. Owing to the growing traffic demands on the main line between Pretoria and Komatipoort as a result of the development and growth in the Eastern Transvaal, especially in the mining sector at Phalaborwa and in the Steelpoort area, as well as the establishment of heavy industries at Witbank, and Middelburg and near Machadodorp, it is essential that the carrying capacity of the Eastern Transvaal main line be increased in its entirety. A commencement has already been made with extensive improvements over the section between Nelspruit and Lebombo at the Portuguese border. Apart from the great lack of line capacity, serious problems are presently experienced in respect of yard capacity, especially at Middelburg and Witbank. The train service over the line between Derwent and Witbank, for instance, is very intensive and operating problems on this section are particularly serious as much shunting has to be performed at intermediate stations. In the absence of adequate yard facilities, shunting operations have to be executed from the main line which considerably hampers the flow of traffic on the already congested section.

Owing to the layout of the Witbank complex. unfavourable gradients and undermined ground, it is, however, not practicable to provide modern facilities at Witbank or in the vicinity thereof. The only way in which the difficulties experienced could be overcome, would be to divert, as far as possible, traffic not destined for Witbank itself from this area. This could be brought about by providing a by-pass route between Eastern Transvaal and the Witwatersrand.

In order to provide this by-pass route it is the intention to construct a single railway fine from Arnot power station to Wonderfontein station over a distance of approximately 22 kilometres to link up with the line between Broodsnyersplaas and Arnot power station, the acquisition of which was recently sanctioned by Parliament. The line will be of main-line standard, electrified and equipped with centralized traffic control. It will take approximately two years to complete the work and is estimated to cost R6,8 million.

Mr. Speaker. we on this side of the House support the construe ion of these three lines, In particular we are pleased to see the opening up of the mineral areas of the North-West Cape by the construction of the line from Groveput to Vogelstruisbult via Prieska. We feel that development will take place in this area, and these lines will be required. Eventually, when the new line is built from Sishen to Saldanha Gay, a large area will have been opened up for the exploitation or our mineral resources.

The second line which will be built from Beestekraalstasie to Vogeltontein, is being built by the private company concerned. The Administration therefore does not have to bear the cost of this line. It was gratifying to learn of the considerable iron ore deposits in this area, and it is hoped that by extending this line by another 16 kilometres, that iron ore will be successfully mined. I am only sorry that the line is not going to be extended all the way at this stage, because it takes so long to build these lines and to arrive at decisions. If the line is taken over by the Administration, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, as may happen, the capital will of course be refunded to the company concerned.

The other line that is being built, from Arnot power station to Wonderfontein, is a different kettle of fish. The Deputy Minister highlighted a situation there, which I think is very serious. He spoke of the congestion on the lines in this particular area. One can visualize the bottlenecks that exist in that area. It is very necessary to build this line if we are going to continue to export coal, because the construction of the line to Richard’s Bay is going to take some time. I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the Administration: It is time that replanning was undertaken in connection with this area, because it is quite evident that a serious state of affairs exists there, and something mud be done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will remember that earlier this year the Minister announced that it was the intention to construct a new railway line from Ermelo to Broodsnyersplaas to make the large-scale exporting of coal possible from the Witbank area through the new harbour which is going to be built at Richard’s Bay.

Full particulars of the contemplated railway line are given in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which has already been Tabled, and therefore my remarks will be brief.

At the request of the Transvaal Coal Owners Association, the Government gave its approval for the authorization, originally granted to coal producers in the Transvaal, for the exporting of about 3,6 million tons of coal per year for a period of 30 years, to be amended so that it would be possible for the producers to export a maximum quantity of 109 million tons of coal at a rate that will not exceed 9 million tons annually. However, the Eastern Transvaal main line has reached saturation point, and therefore the additional tonnage of coal envisaged cannot be transported to Lourenço Marques unless comprehensive improvements to the railway line are introduced. Mindful of the harbour, which is envisaged at Richard’s Bay, an investigation was conducted into the possibility of providing a railway junction between the Witbank coalfields and the Ermelo-Vryheid line. An agreement was reached with T.C.O.A. that exports would take place through the new harbour at Richard’s Bay from 1st April, 1976. With a view to implementing this, it will be necessary to provide a rail link from Ermelo to Broodsnyersplaas, and to reconstruct the existing line between Ermelo and Vryheid at the same time to make heavy unit trains possible. The Railways will be guaranteed against operating losses on the new line, and it is therefore necessary that the shortest suitable route be taken. It is thought that the proposed route over Davel would be the most suitable, because it would traverse easier terrain, the construction of the line therefore being cheaper; it would also establish a shorter through route between the Rand and Richard’s Bay. The length of the proposed railway line will be about 93 kilometres, and the construction work will take about four years.

In terms of the agreement guarantee, the T.C.O.A. will carry 50 per cent of the net operating losses; the Government will compensate the Railways for the remaining 50 per cent of such losses.

Since the guarantee period will only be ten years, the capital investment, including interest, must be recovered within this period.

The agreemen. guarantee forms a schedule to the Construction Bill, and I therefore do not want to go into the conditions in detail. The construction costs of the line will amount to about R41 million, including electrification. The T.C.O.A. was given the assurance that everything possible would be done to provide berthing facilities for the handling of cargo ships of up to 150 000 tons in Richara’s Bay by April, 1976, and that the necessary rail facilities would also be ready for operation by that date.

Because of multiple obligations, the Railways will not be able to undertake the construction of the railway line. Neither is the Treasury able to make available the money necessary for the project in addition to the Administration’s normal needs. With a view to this, it was decided that the construction of the new line, the improvements to the existing line between Ermelo and Vryheid and the required rolling stock, must be carried out and supplied by contractors, on the basis that the contractors would also finance the project to the greatest possible extent. It is proposed to entrust the implementation of the project to a consortium, and tenders will be invited as soon as this is practicable; tenderers will be requested to also submit their financing proposals with their tenders. I shall give the House further information about this when the next Order Paper is dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, we support the construction of this line and we are pleased to see that the Government is at last doing something constructive about the export of our minerals in this country, especially coal. We have been listening to excuses over the years. This line is going to take four years to build and we hope that in the interim while the line is being built the necessary trucks and electric traction units will be provided for this line.

Mr. Speaker, naturally this line will not be operating for four years. In the interim, with effect from 1st September, 1972, the coal will have to be exported. I take it.

via Lourenço Marques. We have just heard of the acute overloaded conditions that exist on that particular line to Lourenço Marques. A considerable capacity will be required on this line for the export of coal. The report of the Railways and Harbours Board in this connection, inter alia, reads—

They are also hopeful of other contracts. We on this side of the House also welcome the terms of the financial agreement, and we note that the building of this line will be done by a private consortium. I think the terms of the agreement are sound in that they will be subsidized in respect of the longer distance from the coal fields to Richard’s Bay. It should be an economic proposition. I think the Administration should keep this in mind when levying freight charges in respect of this line. There is one thing that we must do to encourage our exports. Especially where a contract of this magnitude has been obtained I think we should get stuck in and get on with the job. The only worry that we have on this sine or the House is the restrictions that exists on the Eastern Transvaal line to Lourenço Marques. We hope that the hon. the Minister can tell us that plans are afoot at the present moment to provide the necessary traction units and vehicles to carry the coal from this area to Lourenço Marques and later to Richard’s Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing up to record the disappointment of my constituency at the route that is going to be taken by this line. I understand. and it is also very clear to us, that we are dealing here with a line which is being guaranteed by the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association, that it is a line which has to be built quickly and that it is a line, in addition, which is being constructed with a specific purpose, i.e. the transport of coal. If we look at the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which instituted an investigation into this railway line, certain facts come to the fore. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already mentioned the first fact in his speech. i.e. with respect to the needs, the requirements and the speed with which the line must be built. From that it appears clearly that the line will have a lifespan of about ten years for the transportation of coal.

I should now like to lodge a plea, on behalf of a portion of my constituency, i.e. Hendrina, which I believe to be one of the few towns, if not the only town in the Eastern Transvaal which is not yet served by a railway line, or at least record my disappointment here. Various alternatives were investigated to a greater or lesser degree, with a view to the determination of a route which this railway line could follow. Another route was investigated in part. This would link up with a point quite a bit further north. The objection to that, particularly with respect to the portion running through the constituency of my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Ermelo, was that it would traverse mining ground. That is a very understandable and comprehensible problem. Neither do I think they insist that the route should go in that particular direction. But if we look at the section in my constituency, and particularly the portion running past the town of Hendrina, we find that a railway line has been constructed here which runs through the veld, through a very small railway station, Davel, and thence to Ermelo. That particular little town, Davel, is already served by another railway line. It is therefore not of essential importance to them. But about ten to twelve miles away from the route suggested in this report, lies the town of Hendrina. Hendrina forms the centre of the new power generation field of South Africa. Power stations are developing—and these are in various stages of development—which will form the greatest complex of its kind in the world when they are completed. This means, therefore, that thousands of families are going to find their future homes in the immediate vicinity of Hendrina. at the two large power stations, Hendrina and Arnott. A little distance away is also the Komati power station. That complex is going to house thousands of people in the future. Hendrina is exclusively dependent upon a road transport service link. Their supplies are only conveyed by road transport service. They now saw a possibility for attention to be given to the agitation which has continued unabated since 1925 for a railway line to serve this community. They saw here, since the coal interests now coincide with local interests, an opportunity for us to possibly obtain a railway line to eventually serve this area as desired. Therefore our disappointment is so great that this railway line is being planned to traverse the veld and not to pass through Hendrina. In support of my statement I should just like to quote from the Railways and Harbours report. Firstly, they state the following—

Quite understandably, the wishes of the different instances varied in accordance with the interests of the areas they represented, but after several interviews had been accorded by the Minister of Transport and the Railway Commissioners, it became evident that mainly the following two routes were advocated by the local interests (Transvaal Coal Owners Association excluded), viz.—

1. (I) a railway line from a point on the existing railway line between Broodsnyersplaas and Arnott power station to Estancia station on the Breyten-Bethal section in order that coal could be conveyed via Breyten.

I have already explained that this proposed section would traverse undermined land. No-one insisted on it very strongly. I believe there was a deputation from my hon. colleague’s constituency which recommended it, but they immediately understood the problem. The second alternative mentioned here is a railway line from Ermelo to Broodsnyersplaas passing through or near to Hendrina. The Railways Board, however, went further and said in their report that the main consideration which applied in connection with the construction of a connecting railway line from Ermelo to Broodsnyersplaas is to provide a railway line for the conveyance in bulk of export coal in long, heavy unit trains to the proposed harbour at Richard’s Bay. In addition, they said that the following factors are also of importance. I quote—

1. (a) To provide a feeder line from the Reef to the future harbour at Richard’s Bay (that is indeed the main purpose), and
2. (b) to stimulate development in 1he areas through which it will run.

This consideration was actually the one on which we based our hopes, Now, however, the Railways Board comes to the conclusion and I quote—

The areas, through which the railway lines would pass, were not regarded as decisive factors by the Railways Board. Our disappointment results from the fact that a railway line is being constructed with a useful lifespan of ten years for the primary object for which it is being constructed. After ten years the railway line will be increasingly dependent on other forms of transport over the same section, so that it can be made consistently profitable. We understand very clearly that in ten years’ time there will no longer be any problems in terms of the contract, which also forms a part of the report, but our problem is that a section of the line will then by-pass a community which is growing by the day. In fact, it is one of the areas with the most rapid growth in the Transvaal, if not in the whole of South Africa. It is one of the areas singled out by the Department of Planning as one of the most rapidly growing areas in the Transvaal. Also, I have received a letter from the Department of Planning in which they clearly emphasize how this area is going to develop.

That, then, is also the reason why our disappointment is so great. We are disappointed because this route could not be amended to serve Hendrina, the centre of this great development, with a view o future expansion. However, I do not want to weary hon. members for long. I want to conclude by saying that I do not believe that on this occasion the Railways Board instituted a sufficiently intensive investigation into a route which would go right past Hendrina. I say this because I suspect that a railway line going right past Hendrina would not have cost more, but I cannot argue the point because I do not have the figures before me and because there was no investigation that made available figures that could serve as a comparison. With respect to gradients and turns, it would compare favourably with the other railway line, and it would compare even more favourably if the construction of bridges and other factors were also to be taken into consideration. In other words, I want to claim that a railway line could have been constructed at exactly the same cost to go right past Hendrina, the same primary object, i.e. to serve as a route for the transportation of coal. If it had followed the route past Hendrina it would, however, also have had art additional value, and an inestimable value as far as we are concerned. I therefore regret that I must express my disappointment about the route that is going to be taken by this railway line.

Mr. Speaker, I firstly want to thank the hon. member for Salt River for his support in connection with this measure. At the same time I want to give him the assurance that the Railways will, in the interim period, do everything in its power to carry the maximum load with respect to exports to Lourenço Marques. The fact that this undertaking is being done in this way, is simply further proof of the fact that the Railways are keeping pace with South Africa’s development by ensuring that the transport is provided so that it can furnish the new markets we are going to obtain overseas.

I can very well understand the hon. member for Middelburg feeling unhappy. I want to record the fact that this is not the first time the hon. member for Middelburg has come with his representations, now that the railway line is an accomplished fact. The hon. member for Middelburg has already repeatedly stated the interests of his constituency as an M.P. ought to do. I have the minutes before me of meetings between the Railways Board and the hon. member for Middelburg and his town councillors. I think that the hon. member has promoted the matter, as much as he has been able to, for the sake of his own community— he did not do it politically, because one does not construct a railway line for political ends. The hon. member himself gives the answers to three aspects. He says himself that we must take the shortest route. The shortest rou e. however, is not merely a matter of capital saving. The hon. member thinks that if the railway line were to go through Hendrina. the project could be cheaper, with fewer bridges and so on. The shortest route has two elementary prerequisites. The first is the possible capital saving, and the other is the long-term operational saving with respect to the tariff, etc., on the transportation of the coal. We must now remember that this is not a railway with a ten-year lifespan—it is a ten-year guarantee contract. I want to state expressly that there is a ten-year contract for the transportation of coal on this railway line, hut that it then also becomes a commercial line, being the shortest route from the Witwatersrand area to Richard’s Bay. That is why one has to take that distance into consideration.

As far as the other aspect is concerned, the hon. member says—and this is true— that 50 per cent of the financing of this railway line is being done by us, and 50 per cent by TCOA. In other words, one must bear in mind those people with whom one concludes a contract for the construction of a railway line.

The guarantee is 50 per cent.

Yes, the guarantee is 50 per cent. Now the hon. member says that the Railways Board probably did not institute an intensive and adequate investigation. The Railways Board also has, to a very large extent, to fall back on the engineers. In the first instance investigations were instituted by means of aerial photographs, etc.

As far as the last aspect is concerned, I want to say that we accept the fact that Hendrina has made out a very good case for its future development. But if Hendrina grows, as the hon. member says, to metropolitan proportions, it will come into consideration for a Rail link when that happens, because the hon. member himself says that the distance is only 12 miles. I can well understand the hon. member being disappointed, as would be any other person who does not have a railway line through one of the important towns in his constituency.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Railway Budget for the present financial year was submitted to Parliament in March, 1971, negotiations with the Transvaal Coal Owners Association and other interested parties in connection with the construction of the new railway line between Ermelo and Broodsnyersplaas had not yet been concluded, and provision could not be made at that stage for the necessary expenditure.

As expected, all the necessary formalities will be completed in time, so that in the course of this financial year lenders can be invited for the construction of the aforementioned railway line, the improvement of the Ermelo-Vryheid section and the supply of rolling stock and other assets which will be needed for the envisaged large-scale exportation of coal.

In the case of contracts in which the contractors not only carry out the construction work, but also provide the equipment and foot the bill as far as the financing is concerned, it is customary for a 10 per cent advance payment on the total costs of the project to be made when the contract is signed. The final contract price will be known after receipt and judgment of the tenders, but it is expected that the railway portion of the project will cost about R150 million, and provision must therefore be made for a cash payment of R15 million during the current financial year.

In terms of section 47 of the Exchequer and Audit Act (No. 23 of 1956) the State President may, by special warrant, authorize the Administration to incur unforeseen expenditure not exceeding, in the aggregate—

1. (i) the sum of one million rand; (ii) the amount by which its accrued earnings, calculated to the last day of the month immediately preceding the day on which the special warrant is issued, exceeds the proportion of its earnings, calculated to the said day on the basis of the estimate of revenues at the commencement of the financial year, whichever amount is the greater;

It is not expected that the revenue, up to the day on which the agreement is concluded with the successful tenderer, will exceed the Budget by the necessary R15 million, and the advance will therefore have to be authorised by way of an additional Appropriation. The envisaged expenditure of R15 million will be financed from the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill so that the building of this line can be proceeded with.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Hon. members will recall that Parliament recently approved of certain improved pension benefits for railway servants and pensioners. In this connection I am referring to the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No. 35 of 1971).

The Bill now before the House is necessary to amend certain other Railway Acts which also pertain to pension matters. I can, however, give the House the assurance that the provisions of this Bill are only of a consequential nature and that it contains no new principle. It is also for this reason that the customary explana ory memorandum has not been made available to hon members.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill which contains important provisions which will improve the lot of Railway pensioners’ widows, particularly—and we realize that it is essential that these people should be afforded financial relief, especially in view of the spiralling cost of living.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated, this is in fact the third instalment of the various concessions that were announced by the Minister of Transport in his Budget speech on the 10th of March this year. In that speech the hon. the Minister announced that the contribution to the Superannuation Fund would be on the basis of 4 per cent of pensionable salary. Amending legislation was introduced, and as the hon. the Deputy Minister had indicated, we had an opportunity of discussing further amendments when the Railways and Harbours Pensions Bill was discussed, which has now become Act No. 35 of 1971. That particular piece of legislation also brought about a slight change in that in the main administrative details will now be dealt with on the basis of regulations. However, Sir, there are certain comments which I feel I should make on the Bill which is before us this afternoon. This is the third and final instalment in a series of measures to make provision for persons to receive additional benefits, and I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has given consideration to the position of persons who are paid gratuities or annuities and who are not members of the fund, I refer particularly to the Indian employees of the S.A. Railway Administration. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether I am correct in saying that in terms of this Bill they will not receive any of these additional benefits.

Order! We are only concerned with the contents of the Bill.

Yes, Sir, I am going to deal with the contents of the Bill. I am merely asking whether that group will fall under the provisions of this Bill.

Then there are certain aspects that I wish to raise under clause I, and I mention them at this stage, in order to expedite the Committee stage. Provision is made here for additional increases and enhancements of the annuities which become payable. As the hon. the Minister announced in his Budget speech, these increases will be on a sliding scale. There will be a 15 per cent enhancement of the annuities payable to those persons who retired before the 1st April, 1968, or where the annuitant died before that date. Where persons retired or died before the 1st April, 1968, the annuity will be enhanced by 10 per cent, whereas in the case of those who retired after the 1st April, 1968, the increase will be five per cent, as indicated later in the Bill. Then the annuity is further enhanced by the addition of two per cent per annum, compounded annually. Clause 1 of this Bill also makes provision now for an additional enhancement of 15 per cent. Is this 15 per cent to be calculated on the final figure of the annuity, in other words after the 10 per cent has been added and after the addition of the two per cent per annum, compounded annually: in other words, is this to be calculated on the gross figure or merely on the annuity that becomes payable in terms of the legislation? If it is calculated on the gross figure, it would make a considerable difference.

Sir, this Bill also makes provision for the elimination of the 20-year limit, as far as the addition of 2 per cent per annum, compounded annually, is concerned. In terms of the Bill before us this provision is to be deleted in the various clauses dealing with the addition of two per cent per annum, compounded annually. I believe that this is an important step. It is a step that we welcome, particularly in view of the fact that in 1969 when this 20-year limit was set by the hon. the Minister, we did voice our objection to the fact that it was pegged to 20 years. We are pleased to see that this 20-year limit is now to fall away in terms of this Bill.

Sir, there are other aspects of this Bill affecting the widows of Railway pensioners. As far as they are concerned, this Bill makes provision for certain improvements for them. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can perhaps give some indication as to the effort of the various amendments, particularly in clause 9, which now contains a proviso with regard to widows’ annuities. Previously, the only proviso related to the addition of two per cent per annum, compounded annually, for a maximum of 20 years. The proviso now reads that in the case of an annuitant who dies, the two per cent enhancement of the widow’s pension shall be calculated from the date on which the annuity first became payable to the annuitant. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us some indication as to what the practical effect of this particular concession will be. This concession was announced by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech, and he merely indicated that in future these increases would be payable to the widow from the date upon which her late husband retired from the service of the Railways. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what the practical effect will be of this amendment in terms of which the increase will be payable from the date upon which the person first became an annuitant.

Sir, we believe that this Bill provides relief for those who deserve relief and we believe in principle that it should be proceeded with as soon as possible and we support the Second Reading.

Sir, may I thank the hon. member for his support. The reply to his first question is that Indians are excluded, but I want to assure the hon. member that I am given to understand that this matter is at present receiving the attention of the management to see what can be done in connection with the Indians. With regard to his second question, the position is that the 15 per cent is payable over and above the two per cent.

*The hon. member’s last question concerned clause 9. I just want to give him the particulars briefly. This clause provides for the 20-year limit for the payment of the 2 per cent enhancement of annuities, compounded annually, to be eliminated, and that such enhancement of the annuities of widow annuitants as well as the 55 per cent increase of such annuities shall apply from the date of the annuitant’s retirement to afford relief to those annuitants, and widow annuitants, who retired a number of years ago. Provision also had to be made for the approved percentage additions to afford relief to those annuitants who retired a number of years ago.

Is this just for the future?

No, for the present.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time,

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

I want to say immediately that my point of view in this matter is supported by the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa, who feel very strongly about this matter, and in fact made representations in the form of a memorandum to the commission of inquiry which dealt with this Bill. The point that we wish to stress is that the clause provides for certain rules to be drawn up in connection with the termination of membership of a member of the Stock-Exchange. It is thought in some circles that as the Stock Exchange Committee itself deals with applications for membership and lays down the norms and the code by which it admits such members, and because of certain delicate matters which arise from time to time between members themselves and between members and the public whom they serve, this is a matter peculiar to the committee itself, and should be dealt with by the committee. It is felt that the member concerned should have the right to make his representations and thereafter supplied with a copy of the record. There are very often matters which the committee may wish to discuss with the member himself, and it may feel that it should not discuss those matters with anybody else but the member concerned. I want to point out to the Minister that those are matters which a committee could in any event discuss with a member, without the question of termination of membership necessarily being involved. I assume that the Minister is guided by the fact that in many clubs members are from time to time hauled over the coals by the committee. They may for instance be called before the committee to explain their conduct in the club either towards the staff or as a result of their relationship with other members. The question of termination, however, has a sense of finality about it. Termination of membership of the Stock Exchange actually brings to an end the source of livelihood of the member. To be blunt, it puts him out of business as a stockbroker. This is therefore a very important step, and even though he has a right of appeal to the Appeal Board, for which provision is made in the Act, and even though, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Appeal Board, he can go to a court of law in order to place the merits of his case before that court, he can nevertheless on termination of membership be excluded from dealing on the market, and that decision is not in any way suspended because of the appeal or because of the further steps the stockbroker may take. Here I must point out that these steps can take a considerable length of time. It is true that the rules can provide for the committee to avoid such suspension pending the appeal if it wishes. But that is purely a permissive provision, and that is already contained in the Act and not subject to amendment. Therefore I was obliged to withdraw a suggested amendment to a later provision in the same clause whereby the Committee would be obliged to suspend any decision it would give pending such appeal.

Order! The hon. member can discuss that later.

Unfortunately I cannot, but I could discuss it later during the course of the debate on this clause. Anyhow, I have made the point. Therefore legal people feel that it is important that where termination is dealt with, a decision which has a sense of complete finality about it, the member should have a legal representative who can argue his case. It is not always easy for a person to make representations himself. Some people have a nervous reaction. Some are unable to express themselves in the way they would like. Although they can seek legal advice with regard to a situation they are not able to deal with the matter easily when confronted by a body of men who have sat for a considerable time on the subject before they have brought the member before them, and where also there is the possibility—I do not say it will arise, but there is the possibility—of prejudice, of competitive interest, or of jealousy. All sorts of human reactions may be seething through the minds of the members of the Committee. One would not like to suggest they would be guilty of such thinking, but it is human nature that such thinking can arise and be present at the time the man makes his representation. People sometimes instinctively feel that reaction when they make these representations. Therefore, from all these aspects, I believe—and I think hon. members on this side of the House will accept that point of view—that it will be in the interest of the member and in the interests of justice and in accordance with the normal traditions of practice in our country that, when a man is arraigned before his peers to face certain charges or accusations which can bring about the final termination of his membership, he should have the right not only to make personal representations, but also to do so through a legal representative.

There are two matters here that we must understand very clearly. The first is that we have a question of discipline here. Now we all agree, and I think the hon. member for Parktown also made this very clear a few days ago, that the brokers must be disciplined. A broker is disciplined only when he acts contrary to the public interest, and for that reason it is essential that he be disciplined. But in the process of the application of discipline he is faced with none other than his colleagues here. He is not faced with an outside body; he is faced with his colleagues, who have been chosen by himself and other brokers to occupy that position on the committee, For that reason he is faced here with people who are in the first place extremely sympathetic towards him, people who are perhaps in the same position as our politicians. We also have to keep our voters in mind, and those committee members have to do the same. Should they act unreasonably towards a man who must again vote them in on the committee in the future, surely they can expect not to be re-elected. For that reason they will most certainly not aot unreasonably towards that broker. While the broker then still has the right of appeal, where he may come with legal representation, I consider it to be quite reasonable that at this first trial where he is faced with the committee only, he can discuss matters round the table with his colleagues without having legal representation.

I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Paarl, who was Chairman of the Commission, because the Commission’s report supported the view of he hon. member for Jeppes. If we refer to the commission's draft Bill, in regard to which the commission was unanimous, it was regarded as fundamental that the person brought before the Stock Exchange should have the right to have a legal representative. Now he has changed his mind, hut he does not tell us why. I think that it is a very serious state of affairs when we have a report before the House unanimously supporting a Bill, and the chairman now takes a different attitude. It is interesting to note, too. that the Stock Exchange Committee itself, when it came before the commission felt that it was desirable to have its case presented by eminent counsel. Although they are all highly qualified stockbrokers, when it came to presenting their case before the commission, they were represented by eminent counsel. The very conduct which they demanded and which was in their best interests, namely that they should have counsel to represent them, they are now denying one of their members when he comes before them own committee. Surely, the Stock Exchange Committee is not more hostile than a committee of this House. Even though the committee of this House was examining a draft Bill submitted to us. it was quite prepared to have counsel represent them to put the Stock Exchange point of view. We sat and deliberated on this matter. This point was canvassed seriously, which took some time. When finally we submitted our draft Bill, we were unanimous. There was not a single dissenting vote among all the members of the commission. They were all in favour of the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Jeppes. I suggest that the hon. member for Jeppes has put up a good case based upon the principles which are fundamental to justice. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider it seriously because, no matter what representations have been made to him by the Stock Exchange Committee, their own attitude, when they came before the Select Committee. was to be represented by legal counsel. We suggest therefore that the hon. the Minister should accept the amendment which is before the Committee now.

Mr. Chairman, what puzzles me is why this particular clause, which we have asked to be amended by the insertion of the words that appear in the Order Paper. should ever have been altered in this Bill. As the hon. member for Pinetown says, this was a unanimous recommendation of the commission. I think it is the view of everyone in every sphere of life that everybody shall be given the greatest justice possible. Why, therefore, take out the right of a broker to be represented by his lawyer or advocate? The only reason I have heard mentioned, is the one the hon. member for Jeppes has mentioned. The fact is that it is the Stock Exchange Committee themselves that admit a person to membership of the Stock Exchange. I do not think this really holds any water. What must one do to become a member of the Stock Exchange? One must be a respectable person: one must have a certain amount of capital and one must buy a number of seats on the Stock Exchange—I think that it is two at the moment.

And pass an examination.

Yes, well, and pass what is called an examination. If one is honest, if one has rights, if one passes the examination and if one has the capital required in terms of the Act, one is automatically admitted as a member to the Stock Exchange. So the Stock Exchange has really very little to do with who can and who cannot become a member of the Stock Exchange. There are certain criteria which apply to all people and. if those criteria are met, those people must be admitted. The fact that they have allowed them in, does not really give them the right, as this Bill does, to put them out.

The hon. member for Jeppes mentioned a club. I think we must get this out of our minds very quickly. This Committee here must not be under any illusions. Being a member of the Stock Exchange, may provide a very good social club, but the prime object of a person becoming a member of the Stock Exchange is to make a living the same as anybody else does. The prime purpose of membership of the Stock Exchange, as I shall mention in another context a little later, is a profit motive Nobody queries this. Brokers are there to make money the same as anybody else in any other business is out to make money. Once you deny a man the right to make a living in a particular sphere or by means of a particular occupation that he can only practice in a particular place, you are denying him something very serious indeed. It is said that this objection really floes not matter, because it can be taken on appeal. I think it matters a great deal because I believe that the onus will move from one person to another, which is always serious. Once the Committee of the Stock Exchange has said to a man: “You can no longer be a member of the Stock Exchange” it now becomes incumbent upon that person on appeal to prove that he should have the right to remain a member. This, I believe, is the big difference. I can see no reason at all why we should take rights away from people as is now envisaged in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by drawing to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and to the attention of this Committee, the fact that it has for years been a principle of our law—and I suggest a sound principle of our law—that if a man wishes to have legal representation, he is entitled to it. That principle has been departed from in the past in certain instances, in every instance, for reasons which the Government considers to be reasonable or sound. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain to this House why he considers that legal representation should not be allowed to a person whose membership is proposed to be terminated by the committee of the Stock Exchange. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is a very important matter. As the hon. member for Jeppes has pointed out, it could have the result of terminating a person’s livelihood, the livelihood of a man who is probably not qualified to do anything else. He would therefore find it difficult to find a suitable alternative occupation, certainly at the same standard of living to which he is used. Therefore, it is a step which is very serious indeed so far as the member is concerned. The hon. member for Paarl suggests that this is not necessary because it is simply a disciplinary matter. There are many examples of disciplinary bodies that have to consider discipline within their own professions and occupations, where, even in such cases, the persons who are accused, as it were, have the right to legal representation to put their case. There is for example the disciplinary committee of the Medical Council. There are even the Police enquiries where representation is allowed. There are also others.

And in the legal profession. They have to go to court with attorneys.

Yes. Mr. Chairman, I do not see any sound reason for depriving persons of legal representation in such cases. It does not detract in any way—this is the point I should like to emphasize to the hon. the Minister—from the powers or responsibilities of the committee considering the matter. The committee is still in a position, whether it is being addressed by lawyers or not, to decide the issue on its own. On the other hand the person who is subject to the enquiry, has a better opportunity of putting his case. It is not just a matter of finding some slick attorney or counsel as some people suggest which will be able to either bamboozle the committee or to put forward some case which may not be precisely in accordance with facts, so that he can assist a man who should be found guilty by the committee and whose membership should be terminated. The hon. the member for Jeppes has pointed out, and I should like to stress this, that ordinary individuals are usually not in the position to put their case properly in matters of this kind. They are obviously inexperienced and they may be very nervous because of the serious consequences to themselves if the matter should go wrong. All this may cause such persons not to put their case as well as the case might have been put. I want to emphasize that I am not now suggesting any distortion of the care, but I am suggesting that the case, on the facts as they are, can be put better by a man who is experienced. In this way, the committee itself will be in a better position to judge whether the termination of the membership is warranted or not.

The hon. member for Paarl has also pointed out that the body concerned is made up of colleagues of the member. He has stressed the fact that the members of the committee are chosen by the member himself and his other colleagues. That is so. but I would like to point out against this argument that these people are laymen. Although they are in the same profession they are laymen and they may look at it from a point of view which may be somewhat biased. They may be biased to some extent because they are involved in this profession every day whereas if they are addressed by legal representatives a different point of view, which may not have occurred to them, may be put to them. They may regard this point of view as bad and may reject it eventually. In any event, it is a good thing if there is an opportunity whereby a different light can be placed on the facts by somebody who comes in independently. It should much rather be done by such persons than by persons who are involved in the profession every day.

The hon. member for Paarl also put the case that because they are colleagues of the member concerned, they would be sympathetic and they would not act unreasonably. because they would again be subject to re-election. It is not only a question of acting unreasonably. If they act unreasonably there is a remedy of appeal. The courts on appeal would be able to set aside a decision which is based on unreasonable grounds. This is not the case at all. The point is that a person who is no experienced in conducting an inquiry, may come to wrong conclusions simply because of his inexperience and not because of any lack of sympathy for any mala fides. For these reasons I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for Jeppes’ amendment is sound. I go further and ask the hon. the Minister, if he disagrees, to tell us exactly why he wishes to depart from what I said initially, is a general principle of our law, namely that a man who wishes to have legal presentation should be entitled to it.

Mr Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. members on that side of the House. I must admit that I have considered these arguments quite seriously since the Second Reading debate. No new arguments have really been advanced whereby I am persuaded to change my mind in this respect. Consequently I shall not be able to accept this amendment. The new argument advanced, in the first place, by the hon. member for Pinetown was how the hon. member for Paarl could change his mind, seeing that he has been a member of the commission whose recommendations were unanimously accepted. On behalf of the hon. member for Paarl, I want to say that it is something that happens quite often. It is no exception that a person, after new evidence has been brought to him, changes his mind. It is now months since this recommendation has been published.

Was new evidence brought to him?

Yes. He has thought the matter over and has had more discussions. It is quite possible for anybody here, on that side of the House, too, to change his mind about one or more of the recommendations of the commission. It is humanly possible. There is nothing wrong about that.

The hon. member for Parktown mentioned a list of the qualifications of members of the Stock Exchange, but he forgot to mention one very important matter. According to this Bill, one very important qualification is being laid down where it is provided that the Minister should have the right to lay down regulations about the character, education, etc., of the members of the Stock Exchange. They will not necessarily be people who have written a certain examination, paid a certain amount as an entrance fee or who have a certain wealth or power; they must be people of a certain character, education and integrity. Then they are admitted by the Committee of the Stock Exchange. They are admitted by their own people. If their own people admit them, their own people can decide whether their membership should be terminated. That is the argument.

Only for education and experience, not for character?

No. the regulation goes much further. They must in any case be people of integrity. As the hon. member rightly said, here they are peers and equals and they are judged by people of their own quality, standing and profession. I certainly expect that the members of the Stock Exchange Committee will consider other Exchange members in a very sympathetic way, more sympathetic perhaps than an outside body. I have already mentioned the argument that there is this Appeal Board which does not exist in the other professions. The member can. when there is a motion that his membership be terminated, have legal advice. He can bring that legal advice, written or otherwise, to the committee. If it is decided that his membership be terminated, he can appeal to the Appeal Board with his legal advice.

That is the main object of the Appeal Board, which does not exist in other professions. After that, if he is not satisfied, he can go to the ordinary courts. So he is completely protected. His livelihood cannot so easily be taken away from him. First he can appeal to the committee, then to the Appeal Board, and then the ordinary count. I think that by the time he reaches the ordinary court and his membership is then terminated, he can be sure that his membership has been terminated justifiably. I am sorry, but I can only promise hon. members that in the recess I shall again go into this matter. We do not want to make any hasty decisions. I shall again go into this matter from all angles. If I do find it necessary with an open mind, I shall come back next year and introduce an amendment.

We are naturally pleased that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he would be prepared to give this matter further serious consideration during the recess. I would, however, like to ask him to indicate to the House why he is not accepting the unanimous recommendation of the commission in this regard. It was unanimous in including a provision for legal representation in this clause. The hon. the Minister is doing away with that and I think this Committee is entitled to know why the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept in this respect the unanimous recommendation of the commission. I did ask the hon. the Minister when I spoke previously to tell us also why he is departing from the general rule in regard to legal representation. The general rule is quite simple, namely that if a man wishes to have legal representation he should be allowed to have it. There are not many cases in our law where we depart from that because it is a very sound principle.

The hon. the Minister made the point that a stockbroker’s own people, as he put it, admit him to membership and he suggested that it was therefore not unreasonable that his own people should be able to terminate his membership. I accept that principle unreservedly. We are not asking him to depart from that. In terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes the stockbroker’s own people, namely the committee, will still be the body to terminate the membership and will still be the body to consider whether the termination is justified, Surely the hon. the Minister does not suggest that it would be reasonable for a body of stockbrokers who admits a member to have the power to terminate that membership without hearing the person concerned. That would be quite unreasonable even though it is the same body. He does not advance his argument to the extent that because they admitted him they Should also be able to terminate at will. The clause provides clearly that they will terminate a person’s membership only after he has made representations. This, in brief, is the effect of the clause. All that we are asking is that the representation may, if a member so wishes, be made through a legal representative if he chooses to do so.

Order! The hon. member and other hon. members have made this point time and again The hon. the Minister has replied to it already.

I am now dealing with the hon. the Minister’s argument that because the committee admits. they should also have the right to terminate. I am pointing out to the hon. the Minister that we do not quarrel with that, but that we believe that the amendment does not cut across this power in any way. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would assist the committee if the case could be put by an independent legal representative. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the amendment and to amend this clause at a later date.

Mr. Chairman. because of what the hon. the Minister has said, namely that he will perhaps have another look at the matter in due course even though he cannot accept the amendment now, I would like to draw his attention to one fact, namely that as far as the legal profession is concerned, and particularly the sidebar where rules of conduct play a very important part because of the trust reposed in this profession’s dealings with the public, a member’s membership cannot be terminated unless it goes to court and applies…

Order!

Sir. this is a new point, and I insist. if I may say so, that I am not trying to repeal arguments. I have not made this point before, but if you rule me out of order I shall resume my seat.

Order! That point has been made by implication.

Maybe, Sir, but I seem to notice a certain restiveness on y-our part when one continues to speak. but if you rule me out of order I shall sit down.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

“member” in line 12.

The effect of this amendment is to allow the existing bank and the three trust companies to continue to remain members of the Stock Exchange, beyond 1978—in fact for all time. Sir. the more discussion I hear on the proviso that these three companies should cease to be members of the Stock Exchange, the more convinced I become that our attitude is the correct one. Because what are the arguments that have been advanced that warrant taking away the rights of these three companies? The first argument is that the retention by these companies of their rights would create an untenable position and that it would give them a protected and permanent advantage over all other companies. The second one is that eventually the pressure from other companies would be so strong that you would have to throw open wide the doors of the Stock Exchange to company membership. Sir, in the Second Reading debate on this clause I pointed out that for 37 years, since 1934, by the Stock Exchange’s own rules it has not been possible for any other company to become a member of the Stock Exchange. Where have these pressures been? We have not feared anything in the last 37 years. Why should we now suddenly be afraid that there is going to be an enormous build-up of pressure from all sorts of people demanding to be admitted to the Stock Exchange?

This is not a new problem. It has been with us for over a quarter of a century.

Then, Sir. the suggestion is made that because these three companies are members, other companies must have the right to become members, or that if this right is not given to other companies, then these companies must lose their membership. In other words, the suggestion is: ” If I cannot have what you have, then you cannot have it either.” Sir, this kind of thinking seems to smack of socialism, if not almost of communism! This is not part of our philosophy of life; we do not work that Way. This argument makes no impression upon us whatsoever.

The other main argument that has been advanced is that the three companies are getting more powerful by the day; that they are taking over other trust companies throughout the country. that they are widening and windening the areas of their influence and that in time they will dominate the Stock Exchange completely. It is interesting. Sir, that during the sittings of the commission we made suggestions that would eliminate any possible increase in the influence or power of these companies. We suggested, for example, that the existing companies, or new companies, if it had been possible for new ones to join the Stock Exchange, should have their voting rights limited; in other words, that however many companies there were on the Stock Exchange. the voting rights of those companies would be limited to, say, 5 per cent or 10 per cent.

In other words, they would always have a minority of votes and therefore they could not possibly bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Stock Exchange to disrupt it. This was found to be unacceptable. It was not accepted that a limitation of this kind would be effective. Sir, the hon. the Minister says that historical reasons are not enough to maintain the present position of the three trust companies I might agree with this if we were dealing with historical reasons, but we are dealing with far more than historical reasons. We are dealing with actual reasons and with legal reasons. These three companies have a legal right to be members of the Stock Exchange. Their rights are so good in law that we have to pass a Bill in Parliament to take these rights away from them. This goes a great deal further than mere historical rights.

We on this side of the House are not prepared to be a party to the taking away of rights which we believe have not been abused and which we believe are still in the public interest. I have been through all the reasons and all the precedents which were submitted to the Stock Exchange Commission to try to find whether there is any valid reason why these three companies should not be allowed to continue as members of the Stock Exchange, and frankly. I cannot find one. Therefore we must vote against this clause and in favour of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member who has just sat down. I should like to point out Chat the only parties who appeared before the commission of inquiry and who objected to the continuation of the membership of these three companies were the Stock Exchange Committee itself and one other banking organization. Even the Franzsen Commission did not suggest the termination of the membership of these companies. All it said was that it would not like to have banking institutions as members of the Stock Exchange. It is in any event traditional in this country that we do not take away the rights of people when those rights have existed for years, if they contribute towards those people’s livelihood, if the persons concerned have conducted themselves honourably in the course of the exercising of those rights, and if those rights are not inimical to the interests of the public.

The Stock Exchange Committee itself which gave evidence on this matter, conceded that these rights were not inimical to the interests of the public. They stated that it was not because these rights were not in the interests of the public that these companies’ membership should he terminated Furthermore, I should like the hon. the Minister to know that at one time, When the Broome Commission was sitting, the Stock Exchange Committee actually suggested that the membership of these companies be discontinued by Statute. They afterwards withdrew this request, and the Broome Commission discarded the matter The commission in fact did not deal with it at all. I understand that since then, and prior to this commission of inquiry, there was some question of the Stock Exchange discussing a compromise with one of these particular companies.

The company, however, said that it was not prepared to compromise. It said that it had no particular grounds for entering into discussions with the Stock Exchange Committee on this matter. It was not prepared to negotiate and said that it was not prepared “to have its rights disentrenched”. Those were the words used, and that was the evidence given to us. I know that further evidence was sent to members of the commission of inquiry in this regard, in the form of voluminous memoranda. These memoranda contained information gathered from other countries of the world to try to prove that these companies would not have been admitted to the Stock Exchanges of other countries because they differed so much from them in principle. Furthermore, the report itself states—

I tried to remind the hon. the Minister of this company on a previous occasion.

That was because this was a banking institution which had been in business for very many years in the United States, and it had an outstanding reputation. That is exactly the same state of affairs that exists in regard to these corporate bodies that are members of the Stock Exchange. They have existed, at least one of them, since virtually the birth of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. It is probably a foundation member. It has existed since 1888. I gave the wrong date on the previous occasion. I thought it was in the ’nineties, but it was in 1888, and it is accepted not only by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, but also the entire economic structure of the country and all business people and banking houses. It is accepted that these companies have done nothing but bring credit to the business of broking on the Stock Exchange of this country, both by the methods they have used and the investigations they provide and by the advice and research that they do in order to assist their clientele. Furthermore, as I pointed out previously, but I think it can bear repetition, despite the fact that over the last few years we have had the biggest business dealings recorded in the history of the Stock Exchange—in fact, there were some days when we did a greater turnover than even New York—it is an accepted fact—I tried to compare the figures with the Sydney Stock Exchange, which is also a very large stock exchange, but it far exceeded any figures ever shown there—in spite of all that, the total business done by these three companies at no time exceeded approximately 3 per cent of the business of the Exchange. So what fears can there be and what danger can there be. and what practice can they maintain that is harmful to the community? These people have been in business and I maintain they have vested interests like any other business organization which, when removed, have to be fully compensated. This is one of the recommendations made by the minority report. However, it was thought fit to give them compensation in the form of enabling them to continue in business for a further seven years, subject to the rules of the exchange. We maintain that this is not a traditional South African practice. In fact, the thought has been expressed that tradition does not matter, because Parliament is supreme, but Parliament should not interfere in the private affairs of the citizens unless it can be proved that it is detrimental to the interests of the citizen, and no case has been put up that it is detrimental to the interest of the citizen. There is a thought, furthermore, that the institution of corporate bodies is not practised in some of the other principal stock exchanges, such as Britain, Toronto and the United States. In Toronto the matter is very seriously under investigation. In England the London Stock Exchange has corporate membership of outside members. They do not control the membership in any way. They are there in order to provide risk capital for the capital structure for the broking undertakings. Who are we to take into consideration a memorandum which has been sent to us after the commission of inquiry completed its consideration of all matters? Who are we to accept merely an ex parte statement made beyond the scope of the commission’s terms of reference and which states that the situation is not comparable? In fact, it has often been boasted in this House that we must deal with matters as we find them in our own country without looking for precedents. Then I say we should follow the traditions of our own country and do what is right and just in the interest of business people in this country, and not use the arbitrary right which Parliament is obviously using here in order to terminate the membership of people who have given nothing but satisfaction in the market and to the public and who have no blemish on their reputation. And that is conceded by all sides, by all who gave evidence. On those grounds we ask that the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to this matter and not just lightly do something which can create a dangerous precedent, Many of us here have never even seen the inside of the Stock Exchange, have not the faintest conception of dealings on the stock market and have no idea of why people have become involved and have lost money and how that can be avoided. [Interjections.] I said many people here in this House; I did not talk about the members of the commission. We have had the benefit of that. I say that in front of that commission of inquiry no evidence was given to sustain any sound, just reason why these people should have their membership terminated. All that has been done is that it was felt that because they believed it should be so—the majority believed that—it was decided to do away with it. That can be done to any businessman in this country.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: [Inaudible.]

Yes, I say so fearlessly. I am not concerned with the ill-founded humour which is being attempted from the kitchen of the House. I suppose one must get that from the kitchen now and then. The galley must play its part. I say that we must be just and fair in the interests of established enterprises in this country and particularly organizations, one of which was virtually a foundation member at the inception of the stock exchange itself.

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the words “kitchen of the House”.

That I withdraw, but I regret to do so because it is a tradition of the House to call it “the kitchen”.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Jeppes, one would say that what he was pleading for, was a human life, or that something terrible is being done here. One would have thought that what was at stake, was the survival of the companies he was pleading for. He raised a hue and cry as the champion of large companies. I do not think this is such a terrible thing as the hon. member tried to make this hon. Committee believe this afternoon. Surely, evidence has been submitted to the commission of inquiry to the effect that of the four companies entitled to do business on the Stock Exchange only three have, in fact, availed themselves of this opportunity to a limited extent. As far as the remaining company is concerned, it was really a dormant right of which little use was made. That is point number one. The second point which has been raised and in respect of which evidence has been submitted, was to the effect that those companies only held nominal representation on the floor of the Stock Exchange through one person they have had there.

There is only one; not the other three.

Yes, that is correct. Sound evidence has been submitted to this Committee to the effect that the Stock Exchange Committee should be in a position to apply a certain measure of discipline, but that it is very difficult to exercise this discipline over a company and over a public company in particular. Here we have the case where an official acts on behalf of the company. If anything goes wrong with such a company, he can blame the official for it. So much as far as the question of companies as such is concerned.

All four companies are large companies which do not, in the normal course of their business, carry on business as stockbrokers. They merely enjoyed this right as an additional right, but they did not utilize it to the full. As a matter of fact, they did not utilize it at all. We have the position here that there are four companies which enjoy the sole privilege of being able to carry on business on the Stock Exchange while there are numerous other companies of the same nature in South Africa which carry on business of the same nature but cannot obtain those rights. As against that, very sound representations have been submitted to the commission to the effect that established rights can, in fact, be taken away from individuals or companies by Parliament from time to time. Adequate evidence has been submitted to the commission in this regard. I have here in my hand representations which have a bearing on this aspect of the matter, but I do not want to repeat it here, thus wasting the time of the committee. The commission has subsequently recommended that the companies’ membership of the Stock Exchange be terminated as from this year. But the hon. the Minister has extended the membership of those companies for a further seven years, i.e. until 1978, In other words, those companies are placed in the position where they can regulate their affairs over a period of seven years so that they will not feel the effect of the termination of their membership. Honestly, it was really not necessary for the hon. member for Jeppes to raise such a hue and cry about such a minor matter as this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down was a member of that Stock Exchange Commission. He surely cannot deny that a very powerful case was put up by these three trust companies. They were led by eminent counsel. They gave us information of experience which they gained when their counsel went to other Stock Exchanges overseas. They put up a very impressive case. It is fundamental that rights are being taken away from companies who have enjoyed those rights for over 50 years. The hon. member suggested that it is not possible to discipline companies, but how has the Stock Exchange managed over the past 50 years? Surely, in other parts of the world it is possible to discipline corporate bodies. It is still possible to discipline corporate bodies in this country when they run foul of regulations and laws. It is a weak argument to suggest that it is not possible to discipline a corporate body in dealing with the employers of the company. It is not a sound argument. For more than 50 years the Stock Exchange has been able to discipline its members irrespective of the fact whether they were private individuals or corporate bodies. We are taking away right which have been enjoyed for many years. Because these are fundamental rights, we think that it is unfair and unjust to remove these rights for the reasons given by the hon. member for Parktown in his opening remarks.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members have waxed very eloquent here about the right which these companies have had since 1888 to act as brokers on the Stock Exchange. The hon. member for Jeppes in particular became hot under the collar about this right which one of these companies has had since 1888 until the present, and which will now be taken away from it. But an aspect which was not advanced at all here, is that when these three companies became members of the Stock Exchange, the one in 1888 and the last in approximately 1928, they differed fundamentally from the companies they are today. The hon. member for Jeppes said that even now they only do 3 per cent of the business on the Stock Exchange. That I readily admit. But one must of course always be prepared for what can happen. Now it so happens that Parliament does not deprive people of their rights without a good reason. But it is just as true that Parliament should see to it that its citizens are given equal treatment and that there is no discrimination. In this case there is definitely discrimination. It must be terminated. Allow me to mention one example of discrimination. The rules of ethics of the Stock Exchange state expressly that a broker may not advertise his enterprise. But these companies advertise their enterprises every day. When an investor who wants to invest his money goes to these companies to do so, he can very easily be referred to their brokerage section. Their brokerage section does not advertise, but they advertise their business as deposit-receiving institutions, as an institution which invests the savings of the public. Then the public are urged to make use of their brokerage section. At that specific stage it may just be that the best form of investment is in shares. When an investment section now advises the client that he cannot do better at this stage than to invest his savings in shares, it will most certainly not recommend another broker, but its own brokerage section. This is nothing else but advertising its own brokerage business. That, however, the other brokers may not do. That is why I say that there is very definitely discrimination here. None of us can foresee how these companies may change in character through takeovers and amalgamations, for they may become large investment institutions which to a large extent have the savings of the public in their hands. It is by no means impossible that these brokerage sections of the companies will expand to such an extent that it will not remain at 3 per cent, but that it could subsequently include the lion's share of that work. The most important reason why I want to see the membership of these three companies terminated, is because we must ensure that all the citizens of our country are accorded equal treatment, although we would not like to tamper with their rights. That is why I support the abolition of the membership of these four companies, the one of which is, of course, completely dormant. In fact, if there is anything I regret, I would rather regret the fact that the hon. the Minister wants to give them a further seven years.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I find this clause to be a complete anachronism in what can otherwise be called a good Bill in most respects. It may not be as good a Bill as the Bill which was presented to the Minister by the commission, but it is a good Bill and it is an improvement in regard to the provisions governing the Stock Exchange which have existed previously. But, I regard this clause as being a complete blot in this Bill. I say that because on the one hand this clause is depriving existing businesses, if they are corporations in the normal sense of the word, of their right to trade and on the other hand it is depriving the public of the right to do business with businesses which have been serving them for a very long time. Unlike the Financial Mail, which has shrugged this clause off as being an unimportant aspect of this legislation I consider this abolition of the rights of the corporations to trade on the Stock Exchange a very important aspect. I consider it very important because it affects fundamental rights. Surely. Parliament is here to protect fundamental rights rather than to destroy them. I think most of the arguments for the abolition of corporate membership of the Stock Exchange and most of the arguments against that abolition have already been raised. However, there are certain additions I would like to make to them. One of the main arguments in favour of the abolition of corporate membership of the Stock Exchange, has been that due to the fact that existing members are part of other larger organizations who have diverse interests in finance, mining, industry and commerce, the fear exists that they are going to grow in a sort of octopus manner until they exercise a dominant or even a monopolistic influence on the Stock Exchange. That is something which I do not fear. These companies, as has already been said, have been in existence for a long time and the best they have been able to do to the present is to be able to dominate the Stock Exchange to the extent of 3 per cent of its turnover. In addition, where we have examples of corporate members of stock exchanges, established and accepted, as they are, on certain Continental stock exchanges, like Amsterdam, Zurich, and most of the German stock exchanges, there has been no tendency on the part of those corporate members to dominate their stock exchanges.

Are there individual members on those stock exchanges?

Yes, there are individual members on the stock exchanges of both Zurich and Amsterdam.

The second argument which has been raised in favour of the abolition of corporate members has been that their membership should be abolished, because other companies are not going to be allowed to gain membership of the Stock Exchange. I feel that the pertinent question in this regard is: What harm is being done to other companies that are not members of the Stock Exchange while these three remain members? If there is no harm, and I can see no harm being done to other companies, why should they not retain their membership? To abolish their membership just because other companies do not have membership, to me seems a pure dog in the manger attitude. In any case, Stock Exchange membership. by its very nature, is a limited membership. It is a limited membership as far as individuals are concerned; why should it not also be a limited membership as far as corporations are concerned?

Then it has been said that corporate members have an unfair advantage over other members, because, being part of larger organizations which are interested in other activities, such as the investment of clients’ money, they enjoy particular advantages over their competitors in so far as they enjoy the captive business of the investments which they do for clients, and they enjoy the backwash of advertising done by other parts of their organizations. I admit that those are advantages which corporate members of the Stock Exchange do enjoy; but they have enjoyed those advantages for a very long time, and I have not noticed any harm being done to other members of the Stock Exchange by their enjoying them. Surely, what matters more than the position of the other members of the Stock Exchange is what the position of the public is. Would the public be hurt by these corporations remaining members of the Stock Exchange and enjoying these so-called “unfair” advantages?

Then there are, I think, a whole array of arguments in favour of the retention of these members as corporate members of the Stock Exchange. The argument that they have vested interests in the Stock Exchange, I think, has already been fully covered by other speakers on this side. I would only like to add that during this session this same principle of the protection of vested interests has been admitted by the Government. It was admitted by the hon. the Minister of Health in the debate on the Chiropractors’ Bill. He said:

This is from Hansard, Column 4026. I would suggest that this is a principle which should be strenuously protected by this House.

Then, in favour of retention of corporate membership the argument of what is in the interests of the public comes to the fore. I think this is a cardinal argument. We are much more concerned in this House with what is in the interests of the public than what is in the interests of other stockbrokers. Corporate members who are part of larger organizations interested in investing their clients’ money, conduct such activities as investment management, company management, banking, merchant banking, property development, and so on. Because they do those things they are usually in a position to give very sound and informed advice to their clients. Some maintain elaborate and costly research departments which could not be maintained by most ordinary brokers because they are too costly. They can be maintained by corporations on account of the fact that they can spread the costs over their other investing activities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member for Constantia the assurance that the Select Committee did not arrive at this decision very lightly. I want to acknowledge that the hon. member for Pinetown is right when he says that these companies submitted all the necessary particulars to us as a Select Committee. The first important decision the Select Committee had to take was whether it was in the interests of the country that the membership of companies should be expanded and whether the committee should allow other companies as well to become members of the Stock Exchange. On that point the Select Committee was unanimous that we should not expand the membership of companies of the Stock Exchange further, since it was not in the interests of the country. When we reached an unanimous decision on this matter, that we were not going to give membership on the Stock Exchange to other companies, we also had to decide whether the present members had vested rights or contractual rights. In my humble opinion these four members had contractual rights. Let us now take the first one, i.e. Barclays Bank. Barclays Bank never even made use of its rights on the Stock Exchange. Let us now consider the other three companies. They had only limited rights, and the rights the Opposition now want to give them are also limited. Their rights on the Stock Exchange were limited to such an extent that they only had one person on the floor of the Stock Exchange, doing business for them. What did this right actually mean to them? Nothing. This one person was nothing more than an observer. According to the evidence submitted to us the representative of those companies was merely an observer and he was unable to do any business. because one needs at least four or five persons on the floor in order to do business. Is that not true? The hon. member for Jeppes must now tell us whether one man on the floor means anything. Hon. members of the Opposition do not want to give them full rights; they want to give them limited rights. Sir, let us go on. The Stock Exchange Committee is the body which has already, in terms of their regulations, limited the rights of these companies; they have already done this, and the United Party wants to allow this to continue. Sir, are we not creating a monopoly for these four companies here? If hon. members are not prepared to give companies the right to become members of the Stock Exchange, then surely we are creating a monopoly for these companies. The brokers of the Republic of South Africa want to build up a profession on which they can be proud, and you can only apply discipline to an individual; you cannot apply discipline to a company. I am asking those hon. members: How can the Stock Exchange apply discipline to a large company like Syfrets?

Easily.

No, that hon. member knows that that is not true. If we consider the tremendous growth of these companies and the various interests they have over the length and breadth of the country, it is in the interests of South Africa that they should not be members of the Stock Exchange. If those hon. members say “yes”, then they must also say that they are going to allow other companies to become members of the Stock Exchange; if they do not, they are being unfair and unjust towards all the other companies in the Republic of South Africa. This is once again typical United Party policy; they are falling between two stools.

The hon. member for Brakpan has advanced some curious arguments and I would like to deal with some of them. First of all, he is suggesting that the Government cannot allow the present corporate members to remain members of the Stock Exchange, because that would be creating a monopoly. Sir, this is precisely what this Government did earlier on this session with the Chiropractors Bill. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Health is in the House at the moment, because we pointed out to the Government and to this House at the time, that by limiting the Chiropractic Act to present practitioners, the Government was in effect creating a monopoly for those practitioners. If the Government is prepared to do that in respect of chiropractors on the sole ground that the Government does not wish to transgress the vested rights of present practitioners, why is the case different in respect of corporate members of the Stock Exchange? This is what we, on this side of the House, and the country generally would like to know. This Government seems to have a curious attitude towards vested rights, and we would like to know exactly what is its attitude and its principle in regard to vested rights. It seems to us that it has no principles in regard to vested rights. When it suits them, they recognize vested rights, as the hon. the Minister of Health did; despite the fact, I wish to point out, that the hon. the Minister of Health spent most of his time criticizing the chiropractic profession, pointing out that they were not fully qualified and that they were in effect a danger to the public.

Order! The hon. member must come back to this clause.

Sir. I do not wish to go very far but I wish to point out to the Committee that despite that argument, the Government introduced the Chiropractic Bill to recognize the present practitioners on the grounds that they wished to recognize their vested rights. Sir, I challenge the hon. member for Brakpan, I challenge the hon. the Minister and I challenge any member on that side of the House to tell this Committee in what way the Stockbroking practice of corporate members is to the detriment of the public. Because surely, Sir, the whole issue is the public interest, not the interests of the other members of the Stock Exchange Obviously the other members of the Stock Exchange want to do away with corporate membership, but what we want to know from the Government is this: Do they suggest that the practice of corporate members on the Stock Exchange is to the detriment of the public interest.

May I ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of extending membership to other companies?

Sir, the answer is perfectly clear, I am not in favour of extending it nor were our members on the commission.

That is the point.

No, that is not the point. Sir, there are two issues. One issue is whether it is desirable to extend the membership. Obviously there are many reasons for not wanting to extend the membership because once you do that, you get a whole lot of corporate members, and clearly that would not be in the interests of the Stock Exchange.

Why not?

But, Sir, the issue that we are dealing with is not whether or not it is desirable to extend corporate membership. The issue is simply whether those three or four corporate members who are presently practising, and who have been practising for yours, should have their membership terminated or should be allowed to continue. This is the issue: Whether they should be allowed to continue or whether (heir membership should be terminated arbitrarily? If hon. members on that side of the House claim that they are so concerned about protecting vested interests, as the hon. the Minister of Health told us that the Government was, in the case of the chiropractors, then perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance will tell us today whether he does not accept this principle which the hon. the Minister of Health presented to this House, and if he does not accept it, why he does not.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will not go further, but I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will tell us. Sir. none of the Government members who have taken part in the debate on this clause has suggested that these corporate members have abused their position or have acted in a way which is contrary to the public interest. That being so, I believe that it is a sound principle that the vested rights which they have should be maintained.

The hon. member for Brakpan made the point that the method of practice of these corporate members of the Stock Exchange is limited; that they have only one person on the floor of the Exchange. Sir, that may or may not be the case. It may be that their practice on the Stock Exchange is not as full as that of an individual member, but if they are satisfied with that limited form of practice on the Stock Exchange and they wish to preserve it, surely they ought to be entitled to do so, even though their method of practice may not be the same as that of another member of the Stock Exchange. Sir, that is no reason for terminating their practice. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some reasons to justify the attitude of the Government, particularly in the light of the strong case made by the hon. the Minister of Health for the preservation of vested rights when he introduced the Chiropractors Bill.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Musgrave claims that this side of the House does not take vested rights into account, I am afraid that I have to say, with great respect, that he does not know what he is talking about. He also said by implication that the majority report of the Commission did not take vested rights into account. His colleagues who served on that Commission must have informed him that the Commission did in fact deliberate thoroughly and for a very long time on this very matter of vested rights. In fact, the Commission went so far as to recall advocates from Johannesburg to inform the Commission fully on the different legal principles which have to be applied when vested rights are being tampered with. The original majority report of the Commission was in principle that company membership should be terminated, and because vested rights were to a certain extent being tampered with, it was allowed, by way of compensation, that commissions could be shared for a period of seven years. The hon. the Minister has now decided that, in spite of the fact that the Commission suggested that membership be terminated immediately, he would have liked to have gone even further as far as vested rights are concerned. He then decided that company membership as such be allowed to continue for a further seven years. After all, this was granted to those companies by way of compensation in view of the fact that they would subsequently lose their membership. I therefore reiterate, with all due respect, that the hon. member for Musgrave did not know what he was talking about when he made that statement. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Brakpan that it is not easy to discipline a company. When a company who has membership on an exchange grows to such an extent that it can swallow up other companies, one eventually finds a tremendously expanded system of company interests which have a member on the Exchange, and it is to the detriment of public interest that this should happen. That is why I too support this standpoint of the Minister, that the membership of the companies shall be terminated after seven years,

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prinshof appears to think that the dispensation that these companies have been granted, namely that their membership will not be terminated for another seven years, is satisfactory. Personally, if I had had the death sentence passed on me, it would not matter to me very much whether the sentence was carried out now or in seven years’ time.

Sir, I should like to take up where I left off when my time expired during my last turn to speak. I was dealing with what I considered to be in the public interest as far as the retention of membership of the existing corporate members of the Stock Exchange was concerned. I was saying that these corporate members maintain very elaborate services in the form of research departments for the benefit of their clients, and these research departments can only be maintained by these larger organizations because they are able to spread their costs not only over their Stock Exchange activities, but also over other investing activities in which they are involved. The public does not have to pay any more for these services. That, I think, is what is important. I do not think anybody will deny the value of soundly based advice as a result of careful and detailed research, when it comes to making wise investment decisions.

Then, Sir, I should like to come back to a further argument that I feel is important as far as the retention of membership by these companies on the Stock Exchange is concerned. That is that although this Bill makes fairly detailed provisions to ensure that members of the Stock Exchange will be financially sound, it is the corporate members of the Stock Exchange which are probably the strongest financially, I think that it is an important thing and that is in the public interest, that you should have strong members of the Stock Exchange.

Finally, as an argument in favour of the retention of this membership, I would raw this Committee’s attention to the practice in other countries. On the Continent of Europe corporate members are fairly widely accepted and established as members of the stock exchanges. Amsterdam, which is a fairly important stock exchange, compared with the size of Holland, has amongst its members 27 banks, 24 corporate members and 186 broking firms. Zurich, which has 27 members, has banks as the majority of those members. In the German stock exchanges only banks and savings banks may deal on the floor. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, the U.K. and the U.S.A., the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and the American Stock Exchange are all recognizing the need to move in the direction of corporate membership, and not away from it. Individual members of those stock exchanges are finding it more and more difficult to raise the necessary capital to finance their businesses on an individual basis and are turning to a corporate form of organization. The largest stockbroker in the world, a firm by the name of Merrill Linch, of the New York Stock Exchange, is shortly to turn itself into a public company which will be quoted on its own stock exchange.

During this debate we have had the pros for the abolition of corporate membership of the Stock Exchange and we have had the cons. To my way of thinking, the most compelling arguments are those which affect. firstly, the fundamental matter of the deprivation of existing rights and, secondly, those which point to where the public interest lies, and not to where the stockbrokers’ interest lie. I find no difficulty at all in coming down on the side in favour of the retention of the existing corporate membership, and accordingly I will support this amendment.

hon. members on the opposite side of the House pleaded for the retention of the member ship of these bodies and the companies as brokers in a way which really caused one to think that they were pleading here for the life of those bodies. The hon. member for Jeppes in particular was very eloquent, and one would really say that what was at issue here was the survival of those specific companies.

What was at issue was the vested interests of those people.

Do not anticipate me. What is at issue here is not the survival of those bodies. The hon. members all know that the brokerage business is only a part of the overall activities of those bodies. It is not as in the case of the chiropractors, or what have you, where one can take away a person’s entire livelihood. This is a minor part of their activities, and this is the difference between a corporate member of the Stock Exchange and an ordinary member. An ordinary member, as person, is almost completely dependent for his existence on the fact that he is a member of a stock exchange, but a company is something else again. It has all kinds of other interests. Its income as a result of its membership of the Stock Exchange forms a very small part of its income. Its survival as such is not dependent upon participation in the Stock Exchange. There is a difference in principle between the membership of a company which gives part of its work to the Stock Exchange and a person who devotes his full attention to it.

Kaunda could use that argument.

Perhaps I should go back a little into the history of this matter. I do not think the facts are confidential, and therefore I may just inform hon. members about the origin of this Commission they are all discussing. Slightly more than a year ago, when mention was made of legislation in regard to the Stock Exchange in which the membership of these bodies would be removed, the then chairman of Syfret’s requested an interview with me. He came to plead for the retention of these bodies as members of the Stock Exchange. I told him that I had not myself yet been properly informed about the pros and cons in regard to the membership of those bodies. We agreed there that we would refer the matter to a select committee or a commission of inquiry. The origin of this select committee, which subsequently became a commission of inquiry, was to the greatest extent attributable to the fact that we wanted to have his particular matter investigated. There were other minor matters which also had to be investigated, inter alia, the disposal among themselves of shares of ordinary companies, etc. This was however the principal matter which formed the basis of and the reason for a select committee—subsequently a commission of inquiry—being appointed. If I consider myself to be bound to any suggestion of the commission of inquiry, I would be bound most to this recommendation because I said, as it were, that I would allow myself to be led in my decision by their recommendation in this connection. This recommendation of the committee, of all their recommendations, is most binding on me. For that reason I cannot easily deviate from it.

The hon. member for Parktown again put a few questions here which we have already replied to previously. I should just like to reply to them again briefly. The hon. member asked where the pressure was coming from. According to hon. members my side had supposedly alleged that we had had pressure from other companies which also wanted to be accepted as members of the Exchange. The hon. member for Constantia approved in principle that other companies are also members of an exchange. He said that this happens on the stock exchanges of other countries. He said for example that in Zurich and in Germany there are other companies that are members. If we were to recognize that now. we would be approving in principle that other members could also subsequently be accepted. We would not allow this ourselves, but we would be leaving the door open to other companies to claim with justification subsequently that they should also be granted membership on the Exchange.

I want to give my friend, the hon. member for Parktown, the assurance that if these members remain members of the Exchange, the agitation will begin in our offices as soon as we return to Pretoria that this Act should be amended so that other companies, particularly financial companies, may become members of the Stock Exchange. The hon. member is not in the same position we are in. Requests have already been made to us, and these will increase, to the effect that other companies should also become members of the Exchange. The hon. member spoke here about the companies which have for so many years—and this is important been members of the Exchange. These companies who are members of the Exchange at present and have been for a good many years, are in name but not in substance the same companies.

Hon. members will know that some of the companies have expanded during the course of years. They have purchased new interests and they are continually increasing in size until they become a vast complex of companies. It is not only one company which now has representation on the Exchange, but through them there are a growing number of trust companies in particular who are receiving representation on the Exchange. I maintain that this is not fair to other companies which do not have that advantage. But there is another argument which has not yet been mentioned here. Barclays Bank has now withdrawn, but some of these companies are associated with a banking institution. Now I should like hon. members to go to the South African Reserve Bank and hear their opinion on whether it is a good thing that a broker and a banker should be the same person. Is it a good thing that a firm of brokers and a firm of bankers should be associated? I think it is wrong in principle that a broker’s firm should have close ties with a banker’s firm.

There is another aspect which should be considered. The activities of some of these companies consists, almost solely, of dealing with estates, trusts and similar types of business. This gives them a great advantage over other brokers. I do not think it is fair towards other brokers that these firms should have that advantage. I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for these companies. They are among the best companies in our country, and I have nothing against them as companies. It is no easy matter to terminate their membership, But I do not think it is the right thing to retain them, hon. members on the other side spoke about the rights of these people. But what about the rights of the people who do not have this? Why cannot they also have this?

Reference was made here to other countries. I have evidence here about New York, London and Toronto. I have mentioned it and I could quote it to you. It is evidence from the share markets of Toronto, New York and London to the effect that this type of company would never become a member. I do not know whether the Commission had this evidence. According to what I deduce from the hon. member for Jeppes, the Commission did not have that evidence before it.

We received it subsequently.

You received it subsequently? We received the evidence and studied it. We have the absolute assurance that these companies would not qualify as members of the stock exchanges of London, New York and Toronto.

The hon. member for Constantia spoke about other companies which were share brokers on the stock exchanges of other countries. But those stock exchanges are of an entirely different character. Those stock exchanges are principally controlled by companies because the shareholding in those countries is for the most part in the hands of companies, particularly banking and financial companies. I do not think that the hon. member wants to give our Stock Exchange that character. Then he is going completely against the resolution of the Commission that other companies should not be allowed. It is quite unthinkable that we should in this way change the character of our Exchange. But the argument of the hon. member for Constantia simply shows me the logical conclusion of this policy. If you allow these four companies to remain members of the Exchange, the logical conclusion is that of the hon. member for Constantia, i.e. that you will also be able to allow others because this can do the Exchange no harm. I think that I have with this dealt with the most important arguments and that we may as well proceed now.

Question put: That all the words after “member” in line 11, up to and including “member” in line 12, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, J. E. Potgieter, G. P. van den Berg and M. J. de la R. Venter.

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

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

The aim of this amendment is to make the brokers more fully responsible for any funds of the public which may find its way into their hands. We made our position very clear during the Second Reading stage. It is not necessary for me to add very much to what we said then. However, the hon. the Minister in bis reply to the Second Reading debate said that to ask all brokers to secure or guarantee the liabilities of other brokers is going too far. As he said, it was an overkill. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, he went on to say that it would be too dangerous. I think the hon. the Minister has put his finger on the whole point of this issue, namely that somebody has to take a risk here, however small the degree of risk may be. The question is: Who takes the risk? Does the public take the risk or do the brokers take the risk? In terms of the Bill as it is before us now, the brokers are free from all risks and the public are asked to take the risk, however small this risk may be. I go along with the hon. the Minister that the risk is a very small one; but that is not the point. Once there is any degree of risk, whatsoever, somebody has to take that risk. We say the public should not take the risk.

We made a number of suggestions in the course of the discussion of the Bill. We suggested, for example, that all moneys received for which securities could not be delivered, should be placed into a trust fund. That is a common procedure. But the members of the Stock Exchange had objections. They said that because of the volume of the turnover that took place on the Stock Exchange, because of the enormous amount of money that flowed into the Exchange on different days, it was just not possible for them, administratively. first to put the money in a trust account and then transfer it to other accounts. Whatever suggestions we made, unfortunately we found were unacceptable.

We suggested, for example, that brokers could cover their unlimited liability by taking out insurance policies. This is a normal thing. All of us who are professional men have at some lime or other taken out policies to cover ourselves in case of any problems that might arise as a result of our practice. This was also unacceptable. We have not been able to get the Stock Exchange to accept full responsibility for their members. The committee was unanimous that this should be done. I hope the hon. the Minister, even at this late stage, will regard this clause as one of the clauses in the Bill by which he is almost bound, as he was in regard to clause 11. We cannot accept the position that you can ask a person to pay for something, unless you can give him delivery. I do not want to expound on this question further; I made it quite clear in the Second Reading debate. We regard it as a basic principle of our law and we are not prepared to depart from it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the hon. member for Parktown in moving his amendment. The clause that was recommended in the report provided for the use of the words “unlimited liability’’, but perhaps they sounded a little harsh. The Bill has therefore come forward with the clause in its present form, which provides that the fund shall be able to pay, after excursion, up to an amount specified in the rules, the liability that arises as a result of transactions carried out by members of the Stock Exchange. In other words, the person who purchases or sells is never really sure, in the event of anything going wrong with the finances of the broker, that he together with all the others who are involved. will receive in full the liability to them of the broker.

The rules will provide the limit of the amount for which the broker will be liable. The hon. the Minister did tell us that he had had discussions with the committee of the Stock Exchange and that there was a fund of R300 000 already in existence and that the fund would probably be increased to R500 000 and in due course to even more. Some provision would he made to ensure by insurance that in a case of insolvency there would be a liability of up to R100 000. But we have just had a case where a broker was involved to an extent of R250 000. The circumstances were rather extraordinary, but this man was nevertheless unable to meet his liabilities which has left some people in a rather unhappy position. In supporting this amendment I would like to suggest that the question of the limitation to the amounts should not be provided for in this clause. The new section 13C (1), inserted by clause 19, will then read—

The words “up to an amount specified in the rules referred to in sub-section (3)” should be omitted. This will then bring home to the broker the standard which is expected of him and the liability to which other members of the Stock Exchange will eventually find that they will have to subscribe in order to satisfy the liabilities of that broker. The most important aspect is the fact that the customer will be satisfied and that the public will receive full protection. The only case made out against this point of view by the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House, is that there has been only one case in recent years where a broker was unable to meet his liabilities. I do not think this is sufficient to establish the principle that the liability should not be unlimited. Finally I want to say that the fact that the commission of inquiry took a unanimous decision on this question of liability should, I think, satisfy the Minister of the concern they had in doing exactly what they felt was their purpose, namely, to bring a Bill which would evoke the public's confidence, the confidence that they would not lose their money through risks over which they had no control at all. I think in this case the hon. the Minister should take into account this important aspect of the confidence of the public and, furthermore, the guarantee to the public that they will not lose anything.

Sir, hon. members on the opposite side are again levelling the accusation at us that we took a unanimous decision and that we are now deviating from that decision by acknowledging that the hon. the Minister is right in the change he has made. I do want to point out, however, that we took that decision on a premise which was not correct. The hon. member for Parktown indicated that that unlimited indemnification of the public could be obtained by means of insurance. We have since ascertained that no insurance company would consider selling such a policy. Therefore the bottom has dropped out of our argument and we have had to admit that other measures have to be taken to safeguard the public on the one hand, but which would not drive the brokers to insolvency on the other hand. One cannot get away from the fact that possible dishonesty is not limited to brokers; members of the public can also be guilty of dishonesty. One therefore has to try, on the one hand, to safeguard the public and, on the other hand, not to drive the brokers to insolvency, otherwise one will eventually not get people who are prepared to do the work of brokers. Sir, since having reported to the Minister, we have taken cognizance of the fact that in order to protect the public, the brokers have gone even further than the commission deemed practicable. Thus, for example, the Bill introduced by the commission provided that a broker could not transfer scrip deposited with him as security or otherwise, as security to a financial institution in order to raise money against it, except when the owner of those certificates gave him written permission to do so. The Exchange Committee has now gone further and laid down in their rules that that scrip may under no circumstances be pledged, not even with the written permission of the owner or holder, for the purpose of obtaining money from a financial institution, This, of course, affords much better protection to the public. In addition, the Exchange Committee now provides in its rules that a broker may use only up to 40 per cent of the value of those shares in order to speculate for himself. With all these measures, taken in conjunction, I am now satisfied that the public is being properly protected. There may still be a highly exceptional case where a member of the public may suffer a loss, but the entire Bill, seen as a whole, creates such a situation as to make it almost impossible now for a broker to speculate with the money of the public and to go insolvent in that way, as in the case which the hon. member for Jeppes mentioned, where a broker recently could not meet his liabilities and where members of the public suffered losses. This Bill as a whole makes that situation virtually impossible now. Because we are providing in clause 13 that payment must be made within seven days, far less gambling can now take place, and this also safeguards the public. Because less gambling can take place now, there is so much more stability and so much more security. The danger of a broker going insolvent and the public suffering losses as a result, is therefore virtually being reduced to zero.

I just want to reply briefly and to say that I fully appreciate the concern of hon. members on that side about the security of the money which an investor places in the hands of a broker. But the proposal they have here, is exactly the same as the proposal of an unlimited fund; it is merely couched in different terms. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other; it amounts to the same. For the same reasons I rejected it in the Second Reading stage, I also have to reject it now. We are all concerned about the security of the investor, but this entire Bill from the first to the last page contains a whole series of safety measures to protect the investor. I think what the hon. member for Constantia said is quite correct, i.e. that this is a good Bill. We are not dealing with the old Act now; we have here a new Bill which in many respects introduces completely new safety measures for the investor and which ought to give us great satisfaction.

Sir, in the Committee the hon. member for Parktown raised the possibility of a trust fund. It appears to be impossible in this case, for various reasons, because the activities of a broker differ in nature from those of an attorney. Consideration has also been given to an insurance policy against insolvency, but this is also impossible, because one cannot ensure against insolvency. However, I say this proposed unlimited fund is unfair. It is unfair to the innocent broker. It tempts the other broker to overreach himself, and the innocent broker now has to contribute when all the creditors of the guilty brokers have to be paid out. I think, Sir, that we can keep to this and to the new section 13C. in terms of which a fund will have to be built up to the satisfaction of the Registrar. We shall see to it that in terms of that section a fund is built up which will be as strong as possible in order to meet all requirements without requiring unlimited liability from brokers.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

to substitute the following section:

1. 21B. No person shall publish or issue to the public or circulate any written comment which relates to the trading results of any company or which may influence the value of the securities of any company unless such comment is accompanied by-
   1. (a) the name of the person or persons who compiled it or the name of the person or persons on the editorial staff who, in the opinion of the editor thereof, compiled it; or
   2. (b) disclosure of the source from which it was obtained.

Mr. Chairman, we will accept this amendment. It sets out the intention of the Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 40:

Sir, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

in respect of paragraph (d), shall”.

This amendment provides that the Minister shall make regulations as to the manner in which the money paid by a purchaser off securities should be safeguarded until those securities are delivered. We believe that there should be an instruction that such rules should be put into force, not that they “may” be put into force.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot accept that amendment because, in the first place, it is the duty of the Stock Exchange to make these regulations. If the Stock Exchange does not do what is necessary, the Minister will step in, but the onus is in the first place on the Stock Exchange itself. Therefore the word “may” must be used. I cannot be forced to do what the Stock Exchange should do first.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment. Report Stage taken without debate. Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary, the Bill before us covers the Board of Trade recommendations, the changes necessary to nomenclature and rates because of our membership of GATT, the Budget proposals of the hon. the Minister of Finance on customs and excise, and the Budget proposals on the sales tax. In addition, there is this year an amendment to our trade agreement with Rhodesia. In past years it has been the practice for us to support the Bill at Second Reading and to vote against the provisions of the Bill that are unacceptable to us in the Committee Stage. This year, although we subscribe to the Board of Trade's recommendations and to the tariff changes necessary in terms of GATT, I regret that we find the proposals in regard to customs and excise duty and the sales tax so objectionable and unacceptable that we are forced to vote against this Bill at Second Reading to express our opposition to these measures.

These customs and excise duties and the sales tax proposals are unacceptable to us for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the manner in which these proposals were announced or imposed. Until this year it had always been normal practice for the hon. the Minister of Finance to announce any changes in customs and excise duties or in sales tax, provided they were upward, in his Budget speech. All changes in the past were made at that particular point of time. Even if the new provisions were harsh, and even if they were not liked by the public, there was at least certainty in the minds of the public that the duties that were imposed would be imposed until the next Budget. But all this was changed this year. The hon. the Minister of Finance, presumably in the knowledge that the amount in additional taxes and duties that he was going to extract from the pockets of the public was going to be so large, clearly thought that if he tried to make all these extractions at one time, there would probably be such a public outcry that the people might even have gone so far as to call for his resignation, He therefore decided to pull one tooth at a time, and to get the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in as his assistant. You see. Sir, contrary to established precedent again, the hon. the Minister of Finance dealt his shock to the country in his speech on the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill, when he announced additional sales taxes amounting to R47 million. These are the duties we are being asked to approve in the Bill before us.

Now, having sufficiently tarnished his own reputation as regards taking funds from the pockets of the public, the hon. the Minister left the next move to his assistant, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

And he again did something very strange. He decided by way of a press release to tell the public what he intended to do. Two weeks before Budget day, on 15th March to be precise, he announced through the medium of a press release that with effect from 1st April, 1971, the day after Budget day, in addition to a rise in the price of petrol which he had agreed to give the oil companies and for which, of course, the public would pay, there was to be an additional duty of 0,3 cents per litre, or

1. 363 cents per gallon. This was to be imposed, as I have said, from 1st April, and this second extraction from the pockets of the public was estimated to amount to some R15 million.

By Budget day. on 31st March, with the help of the hon. the Minister of Transport, who had taken R58 million from the pockets of the public, and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who had taken R49,8 million from the public, the hon. the Minister of Finance had got the public sufficiently anaesthetized to make his final extraction. This he did on Budget day, by taking from the public by way of new taxation a further R183 million. This amount included the new customs and excise duties, which amounted to no less than R63.58 million.

Now this was a very skilful operation by the hon. the Minister of Finance. But I want to tell him not to be under any illusions in regard to this matter. The overall shock to the taxpayer was severe indeed. In fact, as time goes on he feels the shock more and more. The anaesthetic is wearing off. The nerves have become exposed, and he is beginning to realize, and realize full well, exactly what these duties we are asked to pass this evening are going to mean to him. If the taxpayer himself does not realize the full implications of these new sales duties and tariff increases, he is hearing daily from his good wife all about them, because it is the good wives who are bearing the brunt of the additional taxes and duties which are being imposed by the Government, and it is to them that the hon. doctor is going to have to answer. Never, for many a year, has there been such a crescendo of complaints about the ever-increasing cost of living. Sir, it is an amazing thing that wherever you go today, in whatever sector of society, in whatever income group, you will find that there is only one topic of discussion. And what is this topic of discussion? The constant increase in the cost of living which is imposing an unbearable burden upon the shoulders of the people.

Now, statistics, it is true, may show that there is only a points rise in the cost of living, but since we discussed this matter in the House a little while ago the position has changed from 4,2, which was I think the final figure we settled on, to something of the order of 5,4 now. The hon. the Minister of Finance, of course, says that what we are dealing with here is one shock increase because of the new duties. I do not think this is going to be the case, unfortunately. I think we are going to see a constant increase in the cost-of-living index over the next six to nine months. If you talk to the housewife today, she will not talk to you in terms of fractional increases but she will produce the evidence to show how far her rand went, say, six months ago and what it has narrowed down to today. One hears a very different story from her. She will tell you that everything is costing more and more. The new duties that will be imposed if this Bill becomes law, will cover a very wide range of commodities and services indeed. The women of South Africa are not going to tolerate this much longer. We are beginning to see the signs of this already. We believe that the people are being called upon to carry an intolerable and unnecessary burden. We do not believe it is right or that there is any need for the public to pay duties of 11.5 cents on a bottle of wine that sells between 95c and R1-20; to pay duties of R2-23 on a bottle of whisky that sells for R4-50, which is just under 50 per cent; to pay Rl-48 on a bottle of brandy that sells for R2-75; to pay 7c to 9c on a bottle of beer that sells for 20c to 22c; to pay 6,64c on a packet of 10 cigarettes that one buys in the shop for 12c.

Thank heavens I gave up smoking.

Me too. One pays 14c on a gallon of petrol which sells at approximately 47c or 48c today.

Who pays for the roads?

We pay for the roads.

One pays another 5 per cent duty if one wants to buy a motor car. This is what we are going to have to pay if this Bill is passed.

What about bread and milk?

I can only deal with these duties. I cannot deal with the increase in the cost of living. I can only say how these duties are going to increase the cost of living. We do not believe that, when a young couple or anyone else decides to buy and furnish a house, they should be called on to pay duties of 15 per cent on the paint or wallpaper they use on their walls; 15 per cent on their furniture, even if it is built in; 15 per cent on the very beds and mattresses they must sleep on. These are not luxuries. They must pay 20 per cent on the carpets and rugs that go on the floor; 50 per cent on Venetian blinds if they want to cover their windows; 15 per cent on their tableware, which they need to eat off; 15 per cent on their cutlery; 15 per cent on glassware; 15 per cent on the stoves they must have; 15 per cent on a hotwater cylinder which everybody needs; and 15 per cent on any other kitchen equipment whatever it is from an eggbeater to a rasp. They must pay 15 per cent on a washing machine, 15 per cent on a dishwasher and 15 per cent on a sewing machine. What does the hon. the Minister think the women of South Africa are trying to do today? They are using their sewing machines in an attempt to bring costs down. Furthermore, people must pay 15 per cent on a lawnmower and 15 per cent on an electric light bulb. We are supposed to live in perpetual darkness under this Government. The people must pay 15 per cent on a refrigerator and to listen to the S.A.B.C.—and this I am not altogether against when I think of some of the programmes—they must pay a 30 per cent duty. The same applies for every flat dweller or house owner. Every time a flat dweller or house owner buys something, out of each R100 he spends, he can expect to pay approximately—it is not easy to calculate—R10 to the Government. Of that R100 he will have to pay perhaps R15 or R20 in excess because of the fact that the tax snowballs. By the time it gets to him, the amount he must pay is much more than just the tax. If a young couple want to furnish their lounge for R600, they can be sure they are giving the Government R60. In point of fact it is costing them R100 more because of the duties and the snowballing effect. It goes far beyond this, it is interfering with every facet of their lives today. The hon. member for Gardens made a plea to the hon. the Minister last year about the cosmetics for ladies. What did the hon. Minister do? He upped the duty by another 5 per cent to make it 30 per cent. He will have to answer to the ladies of South Africa one day and I would not like to be in his shoes. I am petrified of them. Every time they buy a piece of jewellery, even the cheapest costume jewellery, which they use to adorn themselves, they have to pay 30 per cent duty. If the husband wants to buy her a piece of jewellery as a present, he also has to pay 30 per cent. We are paying a duty on practically everything we buy today except on food and on clothing.

And on breathing.

Yes, not on breathing either. Sales duties keep on going up and up. From the day the hon. the Minister introduced sale duties, in the main he has kept on putting them up from 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent to 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent. Last year the Government wanted R116,9 million from the sales tax but it actually received R126 million. What does it want from us this year? It wants R173 million. This Government is getting greedier and greedier. Last year they wanted R45.5 million from beer, and what do they want this year? They want R63.5 million. Last year they wanted duty from wines to the tune of R8,8 million and this year they want R11,2 million. Last year they wanted R80 million from spirits and this year they want R113 million. And my hon. friends on that side of the House, the farmers, must not forget that spirits include brandy. I find it inexplicable. This very week the Government had to send the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to England to try to deal with the position of GATT and the EEC. While our wine and spirit exports are in jeopardy, the hon. the Minister slaps on additional taxes to the order of R3 million, R7 million, R10 million or R12 million. This is what he is doing to the wine farmers. Not only is the position in so far as it concerns the European economic community in jeopardy; he is also slapping on a tax to stop people from buying these products locally. Go and tell the people of Paarl what the hon. the Minister is doing to our farmers in regard to their exports which are already in jeopardy, when he turns the screw on and says: “Never mind about that, let us impose a further lax locally”. It is another case whereby we can illustrate that the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs of the Nationalist Party do not know what the other one is doing. The hon. the Minister of Finance imposes a local excise duty whilst the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs runs overseas to try to protect the position. Nothing makes sense any more. Last year the Government wanted to take from all sources of customs and excise as well as sales duty R649 million. This year they want R820 million. This is an increase of R171 million. Who is going to foot the bill? The taxpayers are going to foot the bill. We have now reached the stage where what was previously part of our normal life, has come to be regarded as a luxury because of the sales duty. If you want a watch today, you have to pay 30 per cent duty. It is unbelievable. Everybody needs a watch! For a suitcase you pay 15 per cent duty, on a brief case 15 per cent duty, on a lady’s handbag 15 per cent and on a pair of sun glasses—just imagine, a pair of sunglasses! —20 per cent duty. On a camera you pay 30 per cent duty. The hon. the Minister will not only have to answer to the ladies, he will have to answer to the small boys who want cameras when they turn 12 or 13 years of age. On a gramophone you pay 30 per cent duty and on a gramophone record 30 per cent as well. Every time we buy our grandchildren a toy we have to pay 15 per cent duty.

Mr. Speaker, we are not living in the age of prosperity in this country any more—we are living in an age of austerity. That is the difference. Whatever you buy and whatever you use—somewhere along the line there is a State duty. There is no duty on the food you eat. but there is on the plate you eat off and on the knife and fork you use. You pay duty on those articles. It is not on your rent, but it is on the bed on which you sleep and the carpet on your floor. You do not pay it on clothes, but if you wear a watch, you pay it. If you have a pen in your pocket, you pay on it. If you have a belt around your waist, you pay on it. As I said, if a lady is carrying a handbag, she is paying on it. You do not pay on electricity in your home, but you pay on your light fittings. You pay on your globes, your stove, your fridge and any other electrical appliance you have in your house.

You have not given any positive alternative.

We do not need it. The whole philosophy is wrong. You do not pay any sales duty on the water when you turn on the tap, but you pay it on the hot water heater. You pay it on the bath plug and the soap. Yes, the hon. the Minister of Finance is with us at all times and in all places. We just cannot get away from him. Wherever we turn, the hon. the Minister of Finance is there. I am very fond of him, so it does not matter as far as I am concerned; but a lot of people must have different views.

But what is worse—I am coming to the point the hon. the Minister raised a minute ago—is that the whole premise on which this additional taxation is based, is wrong. We accepted the principle of sales duty in exchange for a lowering of income tax. This was the condition. What are we faced with today? Higher income tax and higher sales duty. But it is even worse—the hon. the Minister is making the public make the sacrifice because he still believes in the “damp school theory”. But even this theory, as applied by the Government, has no logic at all. What is the hon. the Minister doing? He is taking money away from the private sector, taking it into the public sector, and what does he do with it then? He spends it!

On roads, harbours and railway lines.

Which he should have done years ago. This is the interesting point. This Government has a very strange economic philosophy. If you spend money in the private sector, it is inflation; but if you spend money in the public sector, it is not inflationary. You see, the hon. the Minister has said that he did not regard the Budget as being inflationary. Once again the hon. the Minister stands alone, because every other economist in the country believes the Budget to have been inflationary. We believe these duties are inflationary. When you put on additional duties on commodities, you are creating inflation. As I said just now, we have already seen this inflation rise to 5,4 per cent and worse is to come. We can see no solid foundation for these increases in duty —on the contrary, we can see many reasons for voting against the measure, which we are going to do. We know that voting against the Second Reading of the Customs and Excise Bill is unusual, but we believe profoundly that the time has come when we have to demonstrate quite clearly that we do not like these duties and we reject them completely out of hand.

We are not only rejecting these duties for the man in the street. We reject them because they do harm to our economy, the expansion of our economy and our development. Most important of all, we reject them because they hit hardest against the people who can least afford to bear these increases, our non-European population. We are taking away every simple pleasure from our people. We have heard in debates that have just gone past some of the troubles about which we have to think for the future. Today you are taking away from the non-European the little pleasures he has left a cigarette, a pipe, trinket, and perhaps even that insignia of his success, his briefcase which he carries so proudly. These new duties mean tightening the belt round stomachs that in many cases are already empty. We shall vote against this Bill. There will be no other speakers in this Second Reading debate because when we move on to the Committee Stage we will have ample opportunity of indicating in detail those duties which cause us the greatest concern.

Mr. Speaker, when I looked at hon. members on the opposite side while the hon. member for Parktown was speaking, I realty gained the impression that they were hearing this story for the first time. This story is exactly as old as the length of my stay in this House, i.e. two years, If there were someone sitting in the gallery today who did not know the living conditions and standards in South Africa, he would have thought that this was the worst country in the world in which to live. The picture which the hon. member for Parktown painted here today, would have given such a person the impression that there was nothing here but absolute exploitation of the citizens of this country. He could not have gained any other impression than that the cost of living in South Africa is a record in the world at the present moment. From the picture painted here by the hon. member for Parktown he would not have been able to believe that the cost-of-living index in South Africa is among the lowest in countries which can be compared with South Africa—this has been said here so often that I actually feel uneasy to repeat it. What is all this about? I think I can say what this is all about in the two minutes I still have at my disposal. A struggle is being waged here against that same cost-of-living inflation about which the hon. member waxed so eloquent here. This Government is waging this struggle by its methods, which are ones with which the hon. the Opposition disagrees. However, these are fiscal and monetary methods that are known throughout the world. The Opposition, again, has a different plan, with which we do not agree. What is incorporated in this Customs and Excise Bill, is nothing but a part of that combating process. The hon. member for Parktown knows that since 1969 the public of South Africa started spending unusually heavily, particularly on durable consumer goods. He knows that this is proved by the available statistics and he also knows that this exceptionally heavy expenditure has resulted in a new stimulus and an increase in our cost-of-living index. Tin's must happen; it cannot be otherwise when the demand increases to the extent to which it has without there being a parallel increase in production, Nevertheless, the hon. member for Parktown makes no mention of this. The hon. member for Parktown knows that this expenditure in the Budget had to be incurred, and that this revenue had to be found for the purposes of the infrastructure. He also knows that if we do not act this way in order to curb demand, that money will have to be found by way of foreign loans, for example. That money will have to be brought in from abroad and that will have a very inflationary effect, just the opposite of what is in actual fact being achieved. I think in these few words I have covered the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown to the best of my ability.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—61: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A, S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Hartzenberg, F.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. G; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S.P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L,; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. G; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. G Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, H. D. K. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—34: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Gillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.