Mr. Speaker, I move—

Precisely ten years ago my predecessor introduced his Budget Speech with the following words:

Consequently, in the economic review which, as is customary, precedes my Budget proposals, I shall devote particular attention to the growth prospects in our economy, to any factors which inhibit the growth rate and to measures which could counteract the inhibiting effect of these factors and could positively stimulate growth.

Economic Review

The Balance of Payments

Last year our first priority was the improvement of the balance of payments, since without such an improvement it would have been necessary to be very careful in the application of measures designed to stimulate the economy.

The spectacular improvement which did occur is well known, and it is only necessary to mention a number of the most important aspects. The value of exports in 1972 increased by 36% compared with 1971 as a result of a sharp rise in the volume as well as in the unit value of exports. In contrast, the value of imports in 1972 declined by 2,5%, and this notwithstanding an appreciable rise in the prices of imported goods as a result of the depreciation of the rand as well as of rising prices abroad; it appears that imports of consumer goods declined noticeably more than those of capital and intermediate goods.

Despite a decline in the volume of gold production in 1972, the value of this output rose by 26% due to the favourable price on the private market.

As a result the current account of the balance of payments showed a deficit in 1972 of only R97 million compared with R976 million in 1971.

On capital account 1972 saw an appreciable net inflow of R502 million, which was nevertheless smaller than the 1971 figure mainly due to a net outflow of private short-term capital and the repayment of certain foreign loans by the Government and banking sector.

Taking into account an additional allocation of Special Drawing Rights as well as certain valuation adjustments, total gold and other foreign reserves increased in 1972 by R439 million to a level of R1 090 million at the end of the calendar year. If gold were to be valued at its price on the private market instead of at its official price, the reserves would of course have stood at a much higher level.

Domestic Economic Conditions

The economic growth rate for 1972, as measured by the growth in real gross domestic product, was approximately 3%. This is disappointing figure but, though technically correct, it is to some extent misleading. The low rate of increase is partly due to a decline of 7% in the volume of gold production. This decline is largely the result of a deliberate policy of mining lower grade ore. But due to the higher prices on the private gold market, the value of this lower gold production rose substantially, namely by approximately 26% above the 1971 figure, which however is not reflected in the real gross domestic product. Prices of other export products have also risen appreciably, all contributing to the economic prosperity of the country. If these relative price factors are taken into account, real gross national product shows a growth rate of approximately 4%, or practically the same as the rate achieved during the past three years. Even this figure is still low compared with the new target rate of the Economic Development Programme, to wit 5¾%, but there are encouraging signs of a revival in certain sectors during the most recent months.

It is significant that gross domestic expenditure showed only a slight rise during 1972. The fact that inventories actually declined to a very low level, was an important contributing factor to this small increment in expenditure. Other important causes were a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in Government consumption expenditure as well as Government investment (apart from investment in the infrastructure), while private fixed investment remained virtually unchanged.

The various sectors of the economy showed divergent trends. In manufacturing, construction and mining (excluding gold) a moderate upturn in production occurred; in the first-mentioned sector, however, the improvement only commenced late in 1972. Retail and wholesale sales at constant prices showed a declining tendency in general, but sales of motor cars improved noticeably towards the end of 1972.

Agriculture was blessed during the first half of 1972 by favourable weather conditions, and good summer-grain harvests were achieved. The present wheat and sugar cane harvests also exceed those of 1971. Mainly because of the reduction in the numbers of woolled sheep, the production of wool, in contrast, showed a declining tendency, which nevertheless was more than made up by a sharp rise in wool prices. The production of butter and tobacco as well as the total supply of meat also declined. All told the total volume of agricultural products produced in 1972 was about 4% higher than in 1971.

The second half of 1972, however, was characterized by serious drought conditions over extensive areas and these unfavourable weather conditions continued during the first months of 1973. As a result the prospects for summer-grain harvests as well as grazing conditions for 1973 are not favourable. As our celebrated author and philosopher C. J. Langenhoven, whose centenary is being commemorated this year, expressed it:

The Government is aware of the problems of the farmer—problems which are being aggravated by rising costs—and in this Budget they are not forgotten.

Employment in the non-agricultural sectors of the economy rose moderately over the year 1972. Though the number of registered unemployed never attained a high figure and in fact declined towards the end of the year, the labour market still offers scope for expansion. Salaries and wages rose less than in 1971—relatively less than profits, in contrast to the tendency over the previous four years.

It is not necessary to analyse in detail the movement of prices during the past year, since this subject has already been discussed at length in the House. From December, 1971, to December, 1972, the consumer price index rose by 7,4%. More than half of this rise was attributable to higher prices of imported goods (partly due to the devaluation of the rand) and to increased food prices (mainly due to unfavourable weather conditions).

Monetary Conditions

The large rise in our gold and other foreign reserves, together with a substantial increase of R449 million or 11,6% in bank credit to the private sector, were the main reasons for a sharp rise of 14% in the quantity of money and near-money during the year 1972. As a result of the sharp increase in domestic prices, however, the ratio of money and near-money to gross domestic product at market prices rose only slightly over the year.

The expansion of bank credit to the private sector occurred mainly during the second half of the year, probably in part as a result of the relaxation of the restrictions on bank credit. Net bank credit to the Government sector increased over the year by less than R90 million.

The favourable balance of payments contributed to easier conditions in the money market, and short-term interest rates showed a declining tendency. In the capital market, too, the rates of interest on long-term Government stocks and particularly semi-gilt-edged stocks declined. Building societies experienced a record year despite a reduction in their borrowing rates in August and their funds increased by nearly R500 million.

Economic Prospects

The principal characteristics of the South African economy for 1972 were thus firstly, the dramatic improvement in the balance of payments; secondly, the relatively high level of inflation, which was, however, largely attributable to certain special factors; and thirdly, the comparatively low rate of growth.

The prospects for the balance of payments still appear satisfactory. Reserves have increased further since the beginning of 1973, partly due to the record prices obtained for gold on the private market. The poor agricultural season will indeed affect our exports detrimentally, while imports will probably rise as the economy starts to show a higher rate of growth. Higher imports will, however, probably be accompanied by a higher inflow of capital. On balance the balance of payments should not at present be a limiting factor with respect to the growth of the economy.

International monetary disturbances may, of course, exercise an appreciable influence on our balance of payments, and unfortunately I cannot be optimistic that such disturbances will not recur. Until gold assumes its rightful place as keystone of the international monetary system, I doubt whether a lasting stability can be achieved in this sphere, and this requires a realistic adjustment of the official price of gold. In the meantime there is every reason to believe that the price on the private gold market will remain firm. A general recession in world trade due to exchange rate uncertainties, however, could adversely affect South Africa’s export trade. I hope and trust international financial statesmanship will soon find a satisfactory and lasting solution.

In the meantime the rand is strong in relation to other currencies, and though we decided ten days ago to leave our exchange rate with the U.S.A. dollar unchanged, the Government will not hesitate to review the position once more should the most important European currencies appreciate substantially against the dollar.

As far as inflation is concerned, it is clear that excess demand at present plays no significant role, but nevertheless cost factors can be expected to exert further upward pressure on prices in the immediate future. Included in these factors are the increased rail tariffs which had to be imposed recently, higher wages and salaries, the appreciation of the Japanese and certain European currencies and the rising cost of imported goods in general.

There are, however, other factors which may, perhaps later during this year, exert a restraining influence on the rising trend of prices. The first is our rate of exchange. After the devaluation of the rand in December, 1971, the average value of the rand in terms of all other currencies was reduced by some 12%. Subsequently to the recent devaluation of the dollar and the depreciation of the British pound, the rand in fact appreciated, with the result that its average value in terms of all other currencies was only about 9% below its level prior to December, 1971. The recent upward float of certain European currencies and the Japanese yen again counteracted to some extent the upward movement of the rand, but on balance, and purely on the basis of relative rates of exchange, imported goods ought to be slightly cheaper in 1973 than in 1972. The extent to which this effect will be neutralized by inflationary conditions abroad, is naturally difficult to foresee.

The second factor is the fact that labour conditions are still relatively easy and that manufacturing industry in particular still has considerable unused production capacity. If, as I expect, a revival in industrial production should occur during the course of the year, we can assume that unit costs will decline as production capacity is used more economically, without any immediate pressure on the factors of production and their prices.

For these reasons there are grounds for hoping that once the present cost factors have exerted their full effect on prices, the rate of inflation may decline appreciably. To this end it is of course also necessary that the prices of imported goods should not rise excessively and that we should take care that demand inflation does not again rear its head, for example through the excessive creation of bank credit.

The prospect for a faster rate of economic growth is the most important single element in this review, since growth is essential to ensure satisfactory employment opportunities and rising prosperity for our growing population.

As I have already pointed out, there were several signs of revival in the economy since the fourth quarter of 1972, including higher manufacturing output, increased activity in the construction industry, higher sales of motor cars, a lower level of registered unemployment and several more. As Langenhoven put it: “You need not drink the sea dry to convince yourself that it is salty.”

In addition the Government has already taken several steps to stimulate the economy, the effects of which have not yet fully penetrated to all sectors of the economy. These measures include the relaxation of restrictions on bank credit; the lowering of the sales tax on furniture, certain household equipment and motor cars; the relaxation of the restrictions on hire purchase and other consumer credit; the earlier repayment of loan levies and the granting of enhanced decentralization concessions to industry.

An important factor which still has to show its effect, is the improvement in the salaries and wages for the Public Service, the Railway Administration, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and other public bodies, as well as in certain branches of the private sector.

Furthermore, the basic conditions for growth are now exceptionally favourable. The banks are in a position to expand credit, labour conditions are easier, there is unused capacity in industry and inventories are at a low level. The economic revival in certain foreign countries will also be a favourable factor.

Another factor which should not be lost sight of is the large expansion programme of the State corporations, particularly the South African Iron and Steel Corporation (ISCOR), and of the Railway Administration and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. These programmes have already assumed appreciable proportions and they will attain a peak during the next few years. This will undoubtedly have a great stimulating influence on the economy.

Against all these favourable factors one has to consider the present less favourable position of certain important sectors of agriculture. The detrimental effect of the drought must exert a restraining influence, particularly in the rural areas. Of course we trust that our country will be blessed during the next season with more favourable weather conditions, to allow us to exclaim with Langenhoven:

On balance I am convinced that the forces pointing to an economic revival are very strong, and that we can look forward with confidence to a faster rate of growth during the year ahead. The increased optimism at present noticeable in wide business circles, is a further indication that my confidence is firmly founded.

Economic Programme for 1973

In the light of this review of current and expected economic conditions, we are now able to formulate our most important lines of policy for 1973.

As regards the balance of payments, no special short-term action seems called for. We must, however, keep in mind the longterm aspects as well, and here the Government has been furnished with valuable guide-lines by the Report of the Reynders Commission of Inquiry into the Export Trade of the Republic. The Government has decided to implement, without delay, several recommendations of the Commission, and I shall return to this matter when I deal with my proposals for Government expenditure and tax concessions. The Commission has, however, rightly pointed out that the private sector, too, bears an important responsibility for the development of our export trade. I wish to appeal to commerce and industry to accept this challenge and to enter the export field with greater determination. Perhaps Langenhoven’s terse advice in this respect is quite appropriate: “Do not strike back. Strike first.”

Effective action against the present rising tendency of prices is particularly difficult, since this trend is largely due to unavoidable cost factors. By means of price control the Government sees to it that unjustified price rises in respect of a wide range of basic commodities are as far as possible prevented. The public can also assist by buying judiciously, and employees by exhibiting continued moderation in their wage and salary negotiations. As I have already pointed out, there is good reason to expect that the rate of inflation will before long decline. In these circumstances the best contribution that the State can make is twofold in nature: firstly, to lessen the effect of inflation on the less-privileged as much as possible, and secondly, to see to it that as far as practicable any measures to stimulate economic growth are not extended so far that they ultimately give rise to renewed demand inflation.

Since the prospects for an economic upsurge are now particularly favourable, and since the Government has already taken various steps to stimulate the economy, it would therefore be unnecessary and indeed dangerous to introduce large-scale stimulative measures. Nevertheless, in my view there is justification for further moderate stimulation in the fiscal field as I shall propose at a later stage in this budget speech.

The question is, however, whether it is necessary to devote attention to other non-fiscal measures to stimulate the rate of growth of the economy. I am referring here particularly to the factors of production, viz. capital and labour.

The availability of capital and credit is not at present inhibiting healthy development, but rates of interest are still relatively high and a reduction might assist in lowering the cost structure. As already announced last night, the Reserve Bank has consequently decided, after the usual consultation with the Treasury, to reduce its discount rate by ½% to 5½% and to lower its pattern of interest rates for Government stocks. I trust that this step will be followed by a reduction in bank lending rates; this matter will shortly be discussed by the Reserve Bank with the institutions concerned.

As far as labour is concerned, the raising of productivity is at present of cardinal importance in relation to our aim of faster growth. There are signs that employers have become more productivity-conscious during the past year. Furthermore, the Productivity Institute has made important contributions by drawing the attention of industrialists to the low levels of productivity in certain industries and to the potential which exists for improvement.

Further, the Government stands by its existing policy as announced in the White Paper on the Decentralization of Industries, inter alia, to promote the reclassification of artisan’s work, in co-operation with the trade unions, in order that the less skilled operations may be undertaken by semiskilled workers with a resultant improvement in the status of the artisan. I remain convinced that, through co-operation between the employer and employee organizations, much can still be achieved in this direction.

Training and educational facilities, however, are of the utmost importance. In the case of Whites, Coloureds and Indians the facilities are, generally speaking, sufficient but it is important that they be better utilized.

Particularly with a view to the rising trend in Bantu wages—a trend with which the Government has expressed its sympathy— the increase in productivity of Bantu employees is today of the greatest importance, and more attention will have to be devoted to the relevant educational facilities.

During the past two decades phenomenal progress has been achieved in the provision of the necessary educational and training facilities for the Bantu. The Government has not only succeeded in bringing primary education within the reach of the broad masses, but praiseworthy progress has also been achieved in the field of secondary education, i.e. academic, commercial, technical and vocational training. On the tertiary level Teacher Training Schools, Colleges for Advanced Technical Training in the homelands and the three universities enjoy high priority and the number of students continues to increase.

In order to provide for the labour needs of border area industries and industries located within the Bantu homelands, a training programme has been initiated in terms of which factory operatives and industrial workers receive formal pre-service training with Government aid. The Government is conscious, however, of the great need of industries in the White areas for better trained Bantu industrial workers, also in order to improve productivity. An Interdepartmental Committee has therefore been appointed to investigate the desirability and practical feasibility of a system of pre-service training and in-service-training of Bantu workers for industrial categories of work in White areas duly released for Bantu persons.

It is generally accepted that secondary industry will have to play a key role in the growth of our economy. Industrial protection and industrial promotion thus form an important component of our economic policy.

Under modern conditions, with the establishment abroad of exceptionally large industrial concerns which are located in large domestic markets, South African industry is exposed to severe competition. In addition, certain of our new sophisticated industries require heavy capital investment which results in high unit costs, at least in the initial years. Our policy of protection will of necessity have to be adjusted to meet these changed circumstances.

Another problem arises as a result of the fact that a substantial number of customs tariffs on manufactured goods are bound against increase in accordance with the Government’s obligations in terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Government has been negotiating for some time already in accordance with the rules of the General Agreement in order to obtain the necessary freedom with respect to the tariff bindings concerned, and though progress has been achieved, difficult problems still remain.

In the meantime the Government has given industrialists the assurance that the protection which they enjoy in specific cases through import control, will not be reduced or eliminated until appropriate tariff protection has been considered and put into operation. This means that in cases where the import tariffs are bound against increase in terms of GATT, the Government will not abolish import control in respect of the goods concerned until the necessary freedom has been obtained to provide the desired degree of tariff protection, as recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries, to the relevant domestic manufacturers.

I also wish to mention here the generous concessions at present being offered by the Government to industries which are established in the decentralized areas. I trust that industry will make increasing use of these concessions and in this way create greater employment opportunities particularly within the Bantu homelands.

Later in this budget speech additional measures to encourage industrial development will be announced.

Our economic policy for 1973 should thus, in the first place, be focussed on improving the growth rate of the economy, but in such a way that inflationary conditions will not be aggravated at a later stage. In addition, attention must be devoted to measures which will promote our export trade, particularly in respect of manufactured goods. In this budget I also wish to try to alleviate as far as possible the problems brought about by rising prices for the man in the street, and in particular for the under-privileged.

The Financial Year 1972-’73

I deal now with the Government’s accounts for the year drawing to a close.

On Revenue Account it is estimated that revenue will amount to approximately R2 864 million—R201 million more than the original estimate. This gladdening result derives mainly from increased collections of income tax on gold mines (R50 million), companies (other than mining companies)(R55 million), and individuals (R73 million). As against this, however, we have lower receipts from customs and excise duties (R19 million). Expenditure from Revenue Account is now estimated at R2 825 million, or R46 million more than originally expected, mainly because of higher expenditure on provincial subsidies (R21 million), interest on public debt (R10 million) and the subsidy on wheat (R10 million). After allowing for a further amount of R30 million to cover the opening deficits on Revenue and South-West Africa Accounts, a surplus of about R9 million remains.

Expenditure on Loan Account will, it is estimated, amount to about R887 million, which is R80 million more than the original figure. The increase is mainly due to an additional R42 million for the Railways and a further R29 million for the Orange River Project. The domestic loan flotations of the Government were particularly successful and produced a net amount of no less than R517 million. In addition the investments of the Public Debt Commissioners will be more than R200 million in excess of what was expected, principally due to their sales of Government stock. The result is that the Government was able to repay the 1967 loan levy, and to transfer an amount of R264 million to the Stabilization Account, while the Loan Account is expected, notwithstanding, to close with a surplus of R10,5 million.

I should like to point out that, whereas a year ago it appeared necessary to provide for a transfer of R161 million from the Stabilization Account—R140 million to Revenue and R21 million to Loan Account —we are now not withdrawing anything from the Stabilization Account, but on the contrary are going to deposit therein the large amount of R264 million, while the Revenue as well as the Loan Accounts will close with a surplus. Had we transferred R140 million to Revenue Account, as originally envisaged, this Account would have shown the considerable surplus of R149 million.

Revenue and expenditure on the South-West Africa account do not differ much from the original estimates and this account is expected to show a deficit of R22,l million, which will be covered from the Revenue Account.

The Financial Year 1973-’74

Expenditure from Revenue Account

On Revenue Account the expenditure for 1973-'74 is estimated at R3 392 million, which is 20% above the revised estimate of expenditure for the current financial year. This rise is of course largely attributable to the recently announced salary increases, which will cost the Government about R180 million all told. Without this additional expenditure the increase would have been less than 14%, which under present-day conditions, and particularly after the exceptionally severe economy measures applied in the current year, must be considered as reasonable.

On the Vote Defence an amount of R447 million is provided for. The cost of sophisticated armaments necessary for the effective defence of our borders is high but injudicious pruning in this field may cost a country dearly in the end. As Langenhoven said: “Pay the price of a donkey and don’t expect the service of a horse.”

On the Vote Public Debt an increase of R52 million is provided for mainly as a result of the substantial amount of loan moneys that the State received during 1972.

Provincial subsidies show an increase of R111 million which can be largely attributed to increased salaries.

There is an increase of R48 million in the Vote Bantu Administration and Development due to an enhanced provision for homeland development.

Apart from the amounts in the printed estimates, I should like to propose certain additional expenditures.

Social Pensions

As always the Government remains mindful of the interests of pensioners, and I gladly and confidently propose that the following increases in social pensions be approved. As Langenhoven said: “It is for you and for me to make ourselves the neighbour of the needy and the stranger.”

In the first place I propose that the basic social pensions and allowances for Whites be increased by R4 per month and that settlers’ allowances and parents allowances be adjusted accordingly. This represents an increase of approximately 10%. In view of the substantial relaxation of the means test effected last year, no additional concessions are contemplated in this respect for this year. The increases as proposed will accordingly not result in the extension of the means scale in the case of Whites.

In addition, I propose that the bonus payable to war pensioners be raised by 10% to 35%. Per capita subsidies payable in respect of children in childrens’ homes or foster-care will be increased by R3 per child per month while children’s allowances, payable in maintenance of family allowance cases, will be increased by R1 per child per month and children’s allowances payable to settlers will be adjusted accordingly.

Similar relief based on the existing ratio-basis is also proposed in the case of the non-White population groups. Where applicable adjustments will also be effected in respect of non-Whites in South-West Africa.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the means test in respect of Coloureds, Indians and Chinese be relaxed by—

1. (a) raising the free-income limit from R96 to R252 per annum; and
2. (b) exempting assets to the value of R3 200 when determining the means of an applicant.

The parents allowance payable at present in the case of Coloureds, is R1-25 per month less than that paid in respect of Indians. Unfortunately, it is not possible to eliminate this difference in full immediately. I accordingly would like to propose that the leeway be made up by raising the parents allowance in the case of Coloureds by 50 cents per person per month this year and by 75 cents next year. The parents allowance in the case of Coloureds will thus be increased by R2-50 per month this year.

Last year I mentioned in my Budget statement that the Government had decided to have the whole matter relating to the payment of maintenance grants to all population groups investigated, specifically with reference to the possible abuse of this allowance in respect of illegitimate children. This investigation has been completed and my colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will shortly make a comprehensive statement in this regard.

In order to give Departments an opportunity to make the necessary adjustments, the proposals relating to social pensions and allowances will be implemented as from 1st October, 1973.

For a full year the additional cost of these concessions will amount to R22 million, for the financial year 1973-’74 it will be R11 million.

Civil Pensions

As was recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, it has been decided to consolidate with effect from the 1st July, 1973, the Public Service Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund, the South African Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund, the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund as well as the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund, and to improve the benefits payable from these.

This means that the gratuity to members of the consolidated fund who retire on pension on or after 1st July, 1973, will henceforth be calculated at 6,72% of their average salary during the last three years of service multiplied by the period of their pensionable service. In addition their annuities will henceforth be calculated at 1/55th of such salary multiplied by their period of pensionable service. Widows of officials who die on or after 1st July, 1973, will receive one half of the pension to which their husbands had been or would have been entitled.

The changes which are to be effected will not only involve appreciable increases in gratuities and annuities, but will ensure a pension scheme for employees of the State which will probably be unparalleled in either the public or the private sector. I am convinced that the benefits which are now being provided will ensure a carefree old age for our officialdom and their widows and, what is more, allow them to retain their sense of independence.

Members of the Police Force, the Permanent Force and the Prison Service, who so often have to perform their daily task in dangerous circumstances in order that the citizens of our country may live in safety, will now also get due recognition for this in the form of improved additional benefits.

Though the improved benefits will, in turn, require a quid pro quo from the officials in the form of higher contributions, the State will nevertheless contribute generously in order to make these improvements possible.

Existing Civil Pensioners

The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is at present already paying pensions to a large number of pensioners who were formerly officials of the State or of the universities or certain boards. These pensions, as a rule, are composed of annuities, bonuses and allowances.

Civil pensioners were last granted relief in 1971. It has consequently been decided to consolidate the annuities, bonuses and allowances which would have been payable to such pensioners on or after 1st July of this year, and to increase the consolidated amount by 10% with effect from the same date.

This will mean that, in the case of a person who would, immediately prior to that date, have been entitled to an annuity of, for example, R185-70, a bonus of R42-42 and an allowance of R30, that is a total of R258-12 per month, the pension will be increased by R25-81 to R283-93 per month.

Minimum Pensions

In the case of someone who would have been entitled to a minimum pension of R118 per month prior to 1st July, 1973, the pension will be increased by R11-80 to R129-80 per month, while in the case of a person who is entitled to a minimum pension of R59 per month, the pension will be increased by R5-90 to R64-90 per month. Those persons whose minimum pensions are being increased in this way, will thus no longer fall in the group of minimum pensioners.

The additional cost to the Exchequer in 1973-’74 is estimated at approximately R1,2 million, and this amount has already been included in the printed estimates.

Mentally Retarded Children

Last year the allowance payable by the Department of Health in the case of mentally retarded children in day centres was increased to R1 per child per day. It appears that this allowance is still insufficient and I propose that the allowance be increased to R2 as from 1st April, 1973. The additional expenditure will be approximately R250 000.

Home-owners’ Savings Scheme

Last year the Government introduced the State-assisted home-owners’ saving scheme to encourage individuals in the middle and lower income groups to save in order to enable them to obtain a home for their own occupation. Due to rising prices it has now become necessary to raise the limits which have been laid down for the scheme. The maximum value of a property that will qualify for the scheme is therefore now raised from R16 000 to R20 000; the maximum loan in terms of this scheme, from R12 000 to R15 000; the maximum savings total which will qualify for the interest subsidy of 2%, from R4 000 to R5 000, and the maximum earnings of persons permitted to participate in the scheme, from R5 000 to R6 000 per annum. I hope that these enhanced limits will encourage young married couples in particular to make use of this very advantageous scheme in order to obtain their own home. Their first step is to open a special home-owners’ savings account with a building society. In view of these substantial improvements, building societies are earnestly requested to bring this scheme to the notice of the general public in a more positive manner.

As an additional aid to would-be homeowners, the maximum loan in terms of the 100% housing scheme for Public Servants is increased from R15 000 to R20 000, but the interest subsidy will remain pegged to R15 000.

The cost of these concessions for the year 1973-’74 should not exceed R100 000.

Export Promotion

I have already referred to the importance of export promotion and to the recommendations of the Reynders Commission in this regard. Certain proposals require additional Government expenditure. Two important recommendations in this category have already been accepted and put into operation, to wit specially reduced rail tariffs on export products at an annual cost of R22 million, and an improved scheme of assistance with respect to the interest burden on export financing at a cost of R8 million. Provision for both these schemes has already been made in the estimates. The Government has now decided to accept the following further recommendations which will entail additional State expenditure:

1. (1) assistance to reduce the interest burden in connection with pre-shipment finance of capital goods;
2. (2) similar assistance in relation to the financing of stocks in warehouses abroad;
3. (3) specially reduced rail tariffs for raw materials consigned from the interior to export industries which are located at the coast;
4. (4) a State contribution of 40% of the expenditure on approved primary market research abroad;
5. (5) assistance in relation to approved joint foreign promotion by industrial associations, marketing boards and similar organizations;
6. (6) aid with respect to the rental of foreign warehouses for finished products and components as well as for semi-processed and processed raw materials;
7. (7) assistance in relation to expenses incurred in bringing foreign importers of specific South African products to South Africa;
8. (8) assistance on a selective basis in relation to the cost of electric power required for the beneficiation of base minerals for export; and
9. (9) an increase in the State’s contribution to the National Productivity Institute.

Further details of these measures, as well as of tax concessions to exporters which I shall announce later, will be announced by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, in due course. The total cost involved in the implementation of the aforementioned recommendations (apart from the R30 million which has been included in the printed estimates in respect of the recommendations already accepted) amounts to R5,5 million.

The Government is conscious of the fact that the present high interest burden sometimes creates problems for industrialists who may wish to install new productive capacity for exports. The Industrial Development Corporation will consider this problem and may possibly be able to devise a scheme to assist export industries on favourable terms in deserving cases. If necessary the Government will be prepared to augment the funds of the Industrial Development Corporation for this purpose.

Summary of Expenditure on Revenue Account

Taking into account all of the above-mentioned additional amounts, total expenditure on Revenue Account will then add up to R3 409 million. In addition, provision has to be made for the expected deficit on the South-West Africa Account for 1972-’73, to wit R22 million, and for the payment of R30 million to the Reserve Bank in respect of the Forward Exchange Contracts Contingency Account. As against this latter amount the Reserve Bank will pay over to the State R56 million in respect of the Foreign Currency Adjustment Account. The total amount required on Revenue Account then amounts to R3 461 million.

Revenue 1973-’74

In a period such as the present when an economic revival is probably imminent, it is particularly difficult to estimate State revenue. For purposes of this Budget I have drafted my estimates on a realistic yet reasonably optimistic basis.

Inland Revenue is expected to provide R2 462,4 million in 1973-’74, or R346 million above the revised total for the current year. The special payment of R56 million by the Reserve Bank, to which I have already referred, has been included in this figure. Collections from customs, excise and sales duties will most probably not increase to the same extent and are estimated at R772 million. Total revenue then amounts to R3 235 million, which is R226 million less than the estimated expenditure of R3 461 million.

Before considering methods of covering this deficit, I should like to consider the position of the Loan Account first.

Loan Account 1973-’74

Expenditure on Loan Account is estimated at R981 million, which is R94 million or 10,6% more than in 1972-’73. The most important increases include R24 million for the Railways, R14 million for the purchase of shares in the Armaments Development and Manufacturing Corporation, R11 million for the development of Bantu areas, and R11 million for the provinces (primarily for school and hospital buildings). I wish to draw attention to the amount of R22 million under the Vote Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for assistance to farmers, R4 million of which is earmarked for loan assistance to farmers who have been adversely affected by the drought. Together with the provision of R1,5 million on the Revenue Vote of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for grazing relief, it indicates the concern of the Government about the position of the farmer under the present drought conditions.

The provision for the Land Bank is also being increased by R5 million to R23 million, of which R12 million is for the erection of bulk storage facilities by the cooperatives and R11 million for normal loans to farmers—the latter amount at the special rate of interest of 2% per annum.

The Railway Administration has recently been authorized to raise its own loans, and though it is expected that in future it will still receive the major portion of its loan funds from the Government, it is at present the intention that the Administration itself should find the funds for the Richards Bay coal export project.

Provision must also be made for the repayment or redemption of foreign loans amounting to R68 million, of local loans and for miscellaneous items amounting to R292 million, as well as for the usual transfer of R5 million to the Loan Fund for the Promotion of Economic Co-operation.

The total amount required on Loan Account is thus R1 346 million.

As against this the following amounts are estimated to be available:

In addition it should be possible to issue new local loans and treasury bills to an amount of R180 million and to raise new foreign loans to an amount of R160 million.

All told it is expected, therefore, that an amount of R1 247 million will be available, which still leaves a deficit of R99 million to be covered from other sources.

South-West Africa Account

Expenditure on South-West Africa Account for 1973-’74 is estimated at R75 million, R10 million more than for the current financial year. Revenue is expected, to amount to R87 million or R16 million more than in 1972-’73, thanks mainly to increased collections of inland revenue. After allowing for a transfer of R35 million to the Territorial Fund, there will thus be a deficit of R23 million.

Deficit on Revenue and Loan Accounts

The combined deficit on Revenue and Loan Accounts is thus put at R325 million. In present economic circumstances when it is desirable to stimulate the economy, it would not be expedient to attempt to cover this deficit from increased taxation. On the contrary, I think it is desirable to grant certain concessions, and to cover the deficit from the reserve funds of the State. Obviously, however, the tax concessions will have to be limited, otherwise there would be a big risk that monetary demand will be stimulated to such an extent that demand inflation will once again rear its head.

Before discussing my proposals for tax reductions I should like to deal with a few tax increases. Even Langenhoven, after all, acknowledged: “To every silver lining there is a cloud”.

Taxation Proposals

In the consideration of tax matters I am advised by the Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy, on which the private sector is represented. The Commission has already submitted a variety of proposals, some of which are being implemented today.

Increase in Company Licences

The minimum amount for a company licence is at present R10 per annum. I feel that this amount is too low and that it is conducive to the excessive proliferation of small companies. Consequently, I propose that, while the scale remains unchanged (that is 25 cent per R1 000 of issued capital), the minimum amount be fixed at R50. This change will take effect from 1st April, 1973, and is expected to yield an additional R7 million.

Taxation on Royalties

At present a tax is levied at the company rate (41%) on 30% of royalties and similar payments made abroad. (The levy or scale of taxation is subject to the conditions stipulated in the various double taxation agreements.)

At the moment payments for the supply of know-how, which may also include certain management fees, are not subject to taxation unless such know-how payments are linked directly or indirectly to the use in the Republic of a patent, trade-mark or copyright.

The dividing line between know-how and royalty payments is often very vague and causes considerable administrative problems while at the same time offering an easy loophole for the avoidance of the tax.

It would also appear that know-how payments rather than royalties are being negotiated more and more by international concerns, and that in other countries no distinction is drawn between these concepts for taxation purposes. It is consequently intended to extend the concept “royalty” in the Income Tax Act so that it will include such payments and will also largely be in accordance with accepted international definitions.

The expected additional tax revenue in 1973-’74 will be R1 million.

Dividends to Foreign Shareholders in Insurance Companies

At present dividends paid by South African insurance companies to foreign shareholders are exempted from the non-resident shareholder’s tax. Since local shareholders in insurance companies as well as local and foreign shareholders in other companies do pay tax on their dividend receipts, there is no reason why foreign shareholders in insurance companies should not also make a contribution.

The additional tax revenue is estimated at R200 000 per annum from 1973-'74. It is also proposed that the amendment take effect from Budget date in order to prevent excessive dividend declarations with a view to avoiding taxation (which could conceivably occur should the measure come into effect at a later date).

Stamp duty on transfer of flats, etc., in terms of the Sectional Titles Act

A portion of a building as envisaged in the Sectional Titles Act will not be transferred by means of a deed of transfer, but through an endorsement on the sectional titles document. Stamp duty on deeds of transfer will then not be payable in the case of such transfers.

I am of the opinion that it is only fair that a person who buys a flat for, say, R20 000 should pay the same stamp duty as a person who buys a house for the same price. From tomorrow, therefore, the same stamp duty as that payable in respect of deeds of transfer will be payable in the case of the transfer of units in terms of the Sectional Titles Act.

Customs and Excise Duty on Cigarettes

The Price Controller has received representations from cigarette manufacturers and the Government is satisfied that a small increase in the price of cigarettes on account of higher costs is justified. The increase which can be allowed on these grounds, however, is ½ cent per packet of ten cigarettes, and it is felt that this amount could cause inconvenience to the buyer as well as the seller and that the price increase should rather be rounded off to one cent per ten cigarettes. A notice which authorizes such a price rise appears in the Government Gazette today.

Commerce, however, has no claim to the additional one half cent and I feel it is fair that it should be applied to the advantage of the State. The excise duty on cigarettes will therefore be increased by ½ cent per ten cigarettes.

Coupled with the increase referred to, it has been decided to increases the excise duty on cigarette tobacco by ½ cent per 50 grams and the customs duty on cigarettes and cigarette tobacco by ½ cent per ten cigarettes and ½ cent per 50 grams, respectively.

The increased customs and excise duties on cigarettes and cigarette tobacco become effective immediately and are applicable to those goods which have not as of this moment been cleared for domestic consumption.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 58(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I hereby lay upon the Table, for consideration by the House, the formal taxation proposals relating to increased customs and excise duties.

The additional revenue for the Exchequer from these increases will amount to about R9 million per annum.

Tax Concessions

I come now to what will probably be the most popular part of this Budget. Even so, judging from the numerous requests for tax relief which I have received, a number of taxpayers will certainly be disappointed. However, I cannot shirk my responsibility towards the financial stability of our country. Those who are of the opinion that a massive reduction in taxation is at present justified in order to stimulate faster growth, remind me of Langenhoven’s remark: “If the trees were to take after us, they would despair in winter of ever having green leaves again.” All the signs and conditions for growth are here already; only, we must not become too impatient as we should then create problems—inflation problems— for the future. We should also keep in mind the other saying of Langenhoven: “The downhill of the outward journey is the uphill of the future.”

My tax concessions will, consequently, in the first instance be aimed at stimulating the growth of our economy moderately without driving up costs and prices. In this respect I believe that the stimulation of investment rather than of consumption should at present receive priority. At the same time, in view of today’s price trends, I would like to relieve the burden on the underprivileged and the man in the street.

Sales Duty

The latter aim is the principal motive of my proposals relating to sales duty.

In my Budget Statement last year it was mentioned that the Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy of the Republic would perhaps later during the course of that year submit a report on the possible replacement of the present sales duty by another type of tax. The study has, however, not been completed and the Commission is not yet in a position to report. The task is complex, covers a wide field and requires study in depth of all the facets of the various types of taxes, inter alia, their probable effect on the cost of living, and their administration by the State and by commerce and industry. Sales duty thus, for the present at least, remains in force.

Representations for a reduction in the sales duty on a wide range of goods are continually being received. The Government keeps the position under constant review and will continue to do so. Should it be found that relief is necessary and that the financial position of the country allows, the necessary adjustments will be made.

In this way it was possible during 1972 to lighten the burden of sales duty in certain respects. During September, 1972, the administration of the duty was facilitated by exempting certain intermediary products in manufacturing processes from the payment of the duty. Next, the export trade benefited through the provision for a refund, subject to certain conditions, of the duty on dutiable goods which are exported. Then, too, it was arranged that registered old-age homes and schools will be entitled to acquire certain goods under rebate of duty.

Additional concessions were made during November, 1972. On this occasion certain industries which needed encouragement were assisted and the sales duties on, inter alia, motor vehicles and household furniture, refrigerators and stoves were reduced.

The concessions made in respect of sales duties during 1972 resulted in a loss of revenue to the State of about R20 million per annum.

I propose now that the sales duty on a range of goods, primarily household goods and the few less important foodstuffs which are taxed, be reduced by 5%. It is not possible to enumerate all the goods here but they include spices, sweets, biscuits, sauces, cups, saucers, plates, knives, forks, pots, pans, mincers, polishers, vacuum cleaners, paint, tyres and tubes, radios, gramophones and watches. In addition I propose that the sales duty on glues for household use be reduced from 30% to 20%. In one case the reduction is intended to act as a stimulus to local industry: that is a 5% reduction in the duty on pianos and organs.

These concessions are being made effective by means of a Government Gazette which will be promulgated tomorrow; they will result in a loss of revenue of approximately R13 million per annum.

The Government expects that importers and manufacturers will pass on these concessions to the consuming public. The Department of Commerce will keep a close watch in this respect and should it appear that these concessions are not passed on to the consumer, further action will be considered.

I wish to remind the House that I have the authority to reduce sales duty at any time—an authority which I have already used in the past and which I will use again should circumstances so demand.

Transfer Duty

In view of the rising costs of houses and particularly to help newly-weds to obtain a house of their own, I feel that a concession in respect of transfer duty is justified. At present a rebate of two-thirds of the transfer duty is allowed when the value of the property does not exceed R5 000, one-half for properties between R5 001 and R10 000, and one-third for properties between R10 001 and R15 000, on condition that the property is acquired by a natural person for his own occupation or for the occupation of certain members of his family. I propose that, in respect of developed property, the rebate of two-thirds be applicable up to a value of R15 000, the rebate of one-half between R15 001 and R20 000 and the rebate of one-third between R20 001 and R25 000. On unimproved land there will only be a rebate of two-thirds up to a value of R15 000. The existing conditions as to occupation and the like remain unchanged.

The effect of this concession is that transfer duty on a house of R20 000, which in the past amounted to R700, will henceforth only be R350.

The concession will come into operation tomorrow and will result in a loss of R6 million per annum, but for the 1973-’74 financial year it will amount to R4 million.

I now come to certain concessions in respect of income tax.

Income Tax

Concession to physically and mentally disabled persons

At present expenditure incurred by a disabled person because of his handicap, may be deducted from his earnings up to a maximum of R600 per annum, but only if the expenditure had been incurred to enable him to carry on his trade.

I feel that the latter condition is too limiting, since such expenditure weakens the economic position of a disabled person even though his income may consist primarily of pension or investment moneys. I wish to propose, therefore, that the condition be withdrawn, that is, that the deduction of a maximum of R600 will hold even though the expenditure does not relate to the carrying on of a trade.

In addition I feel that the existing condition according to which the deduction disappears completely as soon as the level of income reaches R4 000 (or R5 000 where both husband and wife are disabled) is somewhat severe in that an increase of only R1 above this level entails the loss of the total benefit. I propose, therefore, that the deduction be gradually diminished by R1 for every R10 by which the income exceeds R4 000 or R5 000. Should a person be entitled to the maximum deduction of R600, it will then only disappear completely when the taxable income exceeds R10 000 or R11 000.

As Langenhoven wrote: “Help your neighbour to carry his cross and you will be surprised how much lighter your own will become.”

Contributions to Pension and Retirement Annuity Funds

In view of the rising level of incomes and in order to encourage saving, I propose that the maximum deduction in respect of contributions to a pension fund be increased from R1 000 to R1 250 per annum, and the maximum in respect of a retirement annuity fund from R2 000 to R2 500 per annum.

The loss of tax revenue for 1973-’74 will amount to about R2 million.

Exporters’ Allowance

Last year the exporters’ allowance was increased in accordance with the recommendations of the Reynders Commission at a cost to the Exchequer of R9 million per annum. Further recommendations of the Commission relating to the scope of the allowance, however, had to stand over for further consideration.

The Commission recommended that the emphasis in the application of the exporters’ allowance should not be limited to the development of export markets, but that it should also include the retention of those markets. I am in agreement with this change in emphasis. As a result, certain additional expenditure items of exporters will qualify for the exporters’ allowance. The most important are:

1. (a) Insurance premiums.
2. (b) Exceptional discounts to promote competition and to reward the foreign distributor or agent in lieu of commission.
3. (c) Certification fee levied by the South African Bureau of Standards.
4. (d) Proportional costs relating to the maintenance of a joint domestic-foreign marketing operation.
5. (e) Cost of registration of patents and trade-marks abroad.
6. (f) The pre-production expenditure on design of export labels and packaging.
7. (g) Packaging costs in excess of those required for the South African market.
8. (h) Membership fees in respect of institutions involved in export promotion.

The Commission further proposed that the exporters’ allowance be extended to cover service industries. The Government accepts this recommendation in principle but further investigation is necessary before it is implemented. As was proposed by the Reynders Commission, my Department, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, will go into the matter further and will shortly draw up a list of the various service industries which will be permitted to participate in the scheme, and will publish this list in the Government Gazette as soon as the necessary amendments to the Income Tax Act have been effected.

The loss of taxation for 1973-’74 is estimated at R1 million; for subsequent years it could be R2 million per annum.

The annual value of tax concessions granted by the Government to exporters during 1972 and 1973 now amounts to R11 million, and the value of other benefits, R35,5 million—a total of R46,5 million.

Gold and Other Mines

Divergent provisions exist in the Income Tax Act regarding the redemption of capital expenditure by mines. The capital expenditure incurred in the development of a gold mine established prior to 1946, is capitalized and allowed as expenditure over the life of the mine. Similar expenditure incurred by post-1946 mines is allowed as current expenditure in the year in which it is incurred. Coal and other mines (excluding diamond and certain copper mines) are treated in this respect in the same way as the pre-1946 gold mines, but to the extent that mining products are beneficiated in the Republic increased annual deductions are allowed.

In the interest of uniformity and in order to encourage mining development, I propose that future capital expenditure of all these mines be allowed in full as a deduction in the year in which it is incurred.

The remainder of the unredeemed capital expenditure in respect of the pre-1946 gold mines will be deducted over a period of four years, and in the case of other mines (except diamond mines and certain copper mines) over the life of the mine or 30 years, whichever is the shorter.

The loss of tax revenue for 1973-'74 will be about R3 million.

Undistributed Profits Tax

A company (except a financial company) which has not yet built up a reserve to an amount of R20 000 is at present exempted from the tax on undistributed profits. In order to permit smaller operating companies to build up a more substantial operating capital, I propose that this limit be increased to R50 000.

As regards the determination of distributable income, I propose that in cases where the deduction relating to the purchase of machinery and equipment is more than sufficient to wipe out tax liability for the year, the balance be allowed to be carried forward to the next year. The company will then not lose any benefit from its capital expenditure on machinery and equipment.

Some of the concessions which I have already announced will stimulate our economic rate of growth indirectly. The concessions which I now wish to propose are aimed directly at higher growth.

Concessions Relating to Moneys Received from Industrial Training Funds

In certain industries every industrialist pays a levy, based on the number of artisans in his employ. These levies are deposited in a training fund, which has been established in accordance with an approved scheme in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and from its subsidies are paid to employers who train skilled workers. The intention is that employers who do not themselves provide training are obliged to contribute financially to the cost of training in the industries concerned.

The levy payable by an industrialist is deducted from his taxable income, but any amount which he receives from the fund is at present taxable. In order to promote industrial training in general and this type of scheme specifically, I propose that one half of any moneys which an industrialist receives from such a training fund be allowed as a deduction from his taxable income.

The loss of revenue for 1973-74 is estimated at R300 000.

Investment Allowance

With a view to encouraging industrial investment and also to allow to some extent for rising prices and consequential increased replacement cost of industrial buildings and machinery, an increase in the investment allowance is, to my mind justified. The present investment allowance amounts to 15% on machinery and equipment and 10% on buildings, but in economic development areas the allowances may be increased to 50% and 35%, respectively. I propose that these allowances be increased by 5% in relation to buildings, the construction of which is commenced on or after 1st April, 1973, or in relation to machinery and equipment which have been brought into use on or after that date.

This concession implies that in the metropolitan areas 120%, and in the economic development areas up to 155%, of the cost of machinery is deductible over the life of the asset. In the case of machinery used intensively and on which a wear and tear allowance of 25% is allowed, this means, further, that in the first year of use, and taking into account the initial allowance of 15%, altogether 56% of the cost of machinery may be deducted from taxable income in all areas; in the economic development areas the deduction may be as high as 91%.

The present investment allowances lapse on 30th June, 1975. In order to give greater certainty to industrialists, I propose that the termination date be extended by two years and that the allowances be applicable to machinery, equipment and factory buildings which are brought into use prior to 30th June, 1977.

The loss of tax revenue for 1973-’74 is estimated at R6 million, and for later years at R18,4 million per annum.

Company Income Tax

Representations have been received from various quarters for a reduction in the rate of tax or loan levy on companies. Any meaningful reduction, however, will result in a substantial loss of revenue. It should also be remembered that our rate of taxation on companies is lower than that in many other countries. Moreover, companies have benefited appreciably from the earlier repayment of the 1967 loan levy, and they will benefit further from the concessions relating to the investment allowance and the undistributed profits tax, which I have announced in this budget speech.

Consequently I cannot see my way clear to agree to these representations. I wish to propose, however, that the remaining 3 % loan levy on dividend receipts of companies be abolished. Because of this the Loan Account will suffer a loss of R10 million.

Income Tax on Individuals

There is at present a 20% surcharge on personal income tax applicable to all taxpayers whose liability for income tax (before the surcharge) is R150 or more.

I propose that this surcharge be reduced to 10%. This concession has the additional effect that the maximum marginal rate, at present 72% when taxable income exceeds R28 000 (in the case of married taxpayers) or R24 000 (in the case of single taxpayers), will be reduced to 66%.

I trust that this substantial concession will be an incentive to all to work diligently for the prosperity of our country.

The loss in tax revenue in 1973-’74 will be R60 million.

Summary

The net effect of all these taxation changes is a loss of R72 million in respect of the Revenue Account and R10 million in respect of the Loan Account. The deficit on Revenue Account, after allowing for these changes, is therefore R298 million, and on Loan Account R109 million.

I propose that the balance in the Tax Reserve Account, i.e. R56 million, be applied towards reducing the deficit on Revenue Account. The balance of the deficit on Revenue Account (R242 million) and the deficit on Loan Account (R109 million) can then be covered from the Stabilization Account. The latter Account has at present a balance of R426 million, and is, consequently, more than sufficient to meet these deficits.

As is customary, a summary of the Government’s accounts on the conventional and on the cash basis is subjoined here in the printed version of the Budget Speech.

Conventional Basis

Cash Basis

Mr. Speaker, the mainspring of economic growth is the enterprise of the private entrepreneur. The Budget can only create the framework and the right climate. This I have tried to do in this Budget, namely, by the following measures:

1. (1) the judicious increase in Government expenditure on necessary services, particularly in relation to the economic infrastructure and the promotion of exports;
2. (2) the financing of these expenditures by drawing where necessary on reserve funds in order to avoid any general increase in the level of taxation—on the contrary, substantial tax concessions are proposed to promote economic growth, including—

1. (a) the halving of the surcharge on personal income tax;
2. (b) the abolition of the loan levy on dividends received by companies;
3. (c) the increase and extension of the investment allowance;
4. (d) the concession relating to industrial training funds;
5. (e) the concession to mining companies relating to capital redemption;
6. (f) the extension of the exporters’ allowance; and
7. (g) the concessions relating to the tax on undistributed profits.

Apart from these measures the Government has already done much to stimulate economic growth, and where necessary it will consider further measures; in this respect I refer in particular to my remarks relating to industrial protection and promotion and to the training of labour, as well as to yesterday’s announcement by the Reserve Bank regarding lower interest rates.

Further, the Government remains mindful of the interests of the underprivileged and of the ordinary citizen, particularly during these times of rising prices. Here I refer to the concessions to pensioners and prospective home-owners, to the reduction in sales duties, to the concessions relating to transfer duty and also those relating to disabled persons.

To sum up, I feel that this Budget establishes a balanced and firm foundation for the economic progress of South Africa. The basic conditions for economic growth are right and the climate favourable; it is now for all of us, and particularly for the private entrepreneur, to put our shoulders to the wheel and to grasp the opportunities offered by economic revival. Langenhoven said: “You will have more than enough troubles if you wait till they come”; let us then go forward with confidence to develop the economy of this land of ours to new heights of prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimate of Expenditure to be defrayed from—

1. (a) Revenue Account [R.P.2—'73];
2. (b) Loan Account [R.P. 3—'73]; and
3. (c) South-West Africa Account [R.P. 4—’73]

during the year ending 31st March, 1974;

1. (2) Estimate of the Revenue to be received during the year ending 31st March, 1974 [R.P. 5—’73];
2. (3) Statistical Survey [W.P. B—’73];
3. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1972-'73 and 1973-'74; and
4. (5) Taxation proposals [A. 1—'73].

REVENUE 1972/73

R1 000

REVENUE 1973/74

(On existing basis of taxation)

R1000

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for every member in this House when I say how distressed we were when the hon. the Minister had to break off in the middle of his speech. We are very happy to see him back in his seat again and I am happy to tell the House that I am informed that there is nothing seriously wrong with him and that it was merely having had to stand up for so long that affected him. I am not surprised, Sir. The hon. the Minister this afternoon undertook a mammoth task in delivering his Budget Speech.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the sound picture of the country’s finances he was able to lay before the House this afternoon, and I share with him his satisfaction in reporting to the House that this year he was able to announce a surplus. But my satisfaction is tinged with a certain sense of concern, when I give thought to the wage-earners, the fixed income groups, the pensioners and the lower income groups who in the middle of all this affluence have been and are still fighting an unequal struggle against inflation and against the rise in the cost of living. They are battling against the inflation that rose last year by 7,4%. It rose for the period from February, 1972 to February this year by 8,9%, and is running currently on an annual basis of very nearly 12%. My satisfaction with the picture painted today by the hon. the Minister is tinged with a deep sense of responsibility that it should be possible amidst all this wealth, for tens of thousands of our people in South Africa to be living below the poverty datum line, while thousands more throughout the Republic, including those living in such places as Dimbaza and Sada and Limehill, are trying just to exist on a mere pittance.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget is set in a framework of hardship and poverty amidst a background of plenty, and whilst the proposals of the hon. the Minister are welcome they will provide only minimal alleviation. We have been told by the hon. the Minister that our growth for last year was approximately 3%. I predicted some weeks ago that this was probably the case and I will have a great deal to say about this at a later date. But this is not all the public is tolerating at the moment. We have already felt the mailed fist of the hon. the Minister of Transport, who with his increases in railage rates, harbour rates, pipeline rates and airways rates has taken out of the pockets of the public of South Africa R180 million. We have also had the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs wanting his pound of flesh and he has just taken from the public of South Africa R28,5 million. These two hon. Ministers are the poor sisters—I will not say the ugly sisters—but the fairy godmother, or the fairy godfather rather, is the hon. the Minister of Finance who sits with his coffers bursting at the seams; and it was within his power to return to the public of South Africa the R208 million which has been taken from them by the two poor sisters. Now, he has made a number of concessions and we welcome those concessions, but the hon. the Minister has a lot of leeway to make up, because what we received from him today amounted to only R72 million. At first blush this Budget savours of a great deal of complacency. In spite of the hon. the Minister’s reference to the question of inflation and growth, there are too many banalities, too little hard, realistic, concise and meaningful blue-prints for action which will ensure an increase in the rate of growth and a halt to inflation. But there are some hopeful signs. The hon. the Minister has at long last taken some cognizance of the advice that we have been giving him gratuitously year after year. I do not want to prejudge the issue, Sir. I want to examine his Budget with my colleagues in much greater detail and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the first instance we want to tell the hon. the Minister that we will not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, for the simple reason that the hon. gentleman has, in regard to the contentious clause 5, done a great deal to set the minds of hon. members on this side of the House at rest as far as this clause is concerned. The hon. the Minister has proposed an important amendment, namely that the powers of expropriation of the commission will remain limited to only those additional facilities it may grant when such an abattoir belongs to the commission itself. We welcome that concession by the hon. the Minister. We have also received the assurance from the hon. gentleman that, if possible, he will effect a further amendment in the Other Place to see whether this property which is expropriated in this way and made available to another person, will not be sold, but rather let to bodies or persons who may require it. We want to urge the hon. gentleman in all seriousness to explore the possibility of leaving it in the hands of the commission and rather to let them hire it out than to expropriate the property for someone else. If that were to happen the last shadow of doubt in the minds of hon. members on this side of the house about clause 5 would be eliminated and then we could have no objection to this clause.

It is a pity though that the hon. the Deputy Minister was not prepared to accommodate us in connection with clause 6. No limit whatsoever is placed on the levies which may be collected by the commission. Since this commission naturally needs revenue, and since we do not want to stand in its way and would also not like to see its expenditure exceed its revenue, we shall have no objection to this clause and we shall accept the Third Reading as such.

Nevertheless, I should like to insist that the hon. the Deputy Minister, now that he has this unlimited power, very carefully bears in mind the objections which we on this side of the House have raised. We should have preferred him to come back to this House from time to time to obtain the approval of the House for further increases in the levy. I think the objection raised by hon. members on this side of the House was a valid one. In my opinion it was just as valid as it was when we first considered this legislation six or seven years ago. I want to insist that the hon. the Deputy Minister points out most clearly to the commission that although their services are appreciated, they must bear in mind that it is still only one sector of South Africa that is responsible for the maintenance of the activities of this commission and that this levy be kept as low as possible and within reasonable limits.

With these words we give our support to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the clause dealing with expropriation, I do not wish to elaborate any further on what I said yesterday. I still intend to rectify what is laid down here in the Other Place, under the same conditions, i.e. if it is possible to do so. I have already been in contact with the Abattoir Commission and they will let me have their comments on this matter as soon as possible. I want to assure the hon. gentleman opposite that we shall handle this matter with great care and to the best of our ability and to the benefit of the industry, with the same degree of earnestness as that expressed here by the hon. the Opposition.

As far as the levy is concerned, it is clear that, as we have stated, we should like to bring it into line with the practice followed in the case of all the control boards, even though there might be a minor difference of opinion as to whether the Abattoir Commission is somewhat different to the normal control board because it does not fall directly under the Marketing Board. It is clear, however, that in the last analysis the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister and I am convinced that, as in the case of all rising costs, the Minister will have a restraining influence and that he will definitely keep a watchful eye to ensure that the farmers do not have to pay unnecessarily, because they are of course the people in whose service we are here and to whom we should like the benefit to accrue. We are also not losing sight of the fact that good services must be rendered and that it is also to the benefit of the consumer that this whole matter of abattoirs be dealt with in the best possible manner. For this reason we shall try to maintain an equilibrium and keep the costs low for both these sectors.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important clause of the Bill. When one looks at the Schedule of the Bill one will see that a number of Acts are being repealed by this Bill. Consequently the definition clause is of considerable importance particularly in view of the various types of pensions that are to be provided for by the remainder of the Bill. Firstly I would like to refer to the definition of “social pension”, paragraph (xvii), and which is defined as meaning:

I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this Bill, whether these pensions will still retain their identity as such when they are awarded. I refer to this matter in particular as it vitally affects those persons who apply for a war veteran’s pension. In the past the War Veteran’s Pension Act has made provision for a war veteran’s pension as such. In 1971 the 1968 Act was amended but in terms of the Schedule both these Acts are now to be repealed. There are a number of war veterans who feel that the term “war veteran” and the award of such a pension signifies recognition of the service they have rendered during time of war. In the definition of a war veteran, in paragraph (xxi), the various wars in which a person must prove to have served before he can apply for a war veteran’s pension is mentioned. This definition has been amended fairly recently in that the definition in the 1968 Act was amended by the 1971 Act. As I mentioned aerlier, the 1968 and the 1971 Acts are now to be repealed. Therefore this definition is of considerable importance. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give me some clarity in regard to the extension of the definition whereby a person is able to claim a pension if he is physically or mentally disabled or unable to provide adequately for his maintenance but who is still under the age of 60 years. This is a slight alteration to the previous definition which was provided for by other legislation. According to that legislation a person under the age of 60 could still qualify for a war veteran’s pension.

Secondly, under the definition of a “war veteran” a person only has two advantages when he applies for a war veteran’s pension. That is, firstly, that he can apply at the age of 60 whereas the age at which a person can apply for an old age pension in the case of a male person is 65 years. Secondly, once a White person is awarded a war veteran’s pension he receives an extra R10 per month. The allowance in the case of a Coloured or an Indian war veteran is R5 per month. The advantage of being a war veteran has also lost some significance in that in terms of the regulations which are dealt with later in the Bill, the means test is now on a standard basis whereas in the past a war veteran pensioner who was over 70 years of age or who was a veteran of the 1914-’18 war or a veteran of the 1906 Zulu rebellion or was classified as a 1914 protesting burger, received preferential treatment as far as the means test was concerned. So, in terms of this clause there are two aspects that are to the advantage of war veterans. I mentioned this because when one considers the definition of a “war veteran”, one sees that at the end after stating the various wars in which a person might have served, there is a proviso providing that this does not include “any person who immediately prior to the commencement of this Act was not a war veteran in terms of any law then in force”. I would like to refer to the fact that in terms of previous amending legislation all reference to race was excluded and in terms of the definition that is now before the Committee, it is merely stated that a “war veteran means any person” without any reference to race. We on this side of the House believe that that is the manner in which it should be dealt with, namely that if a person served during the war years and did full-time service in any of the wars that are specified in this definition of a war veteran, they should all be treated on the same basis, i.e. they should all receive some additional recognition for that war service. Consequently the proviso that is included in this definition, means in effect that one group will remain outside this definition by virtue of the fact that previous legislation in spite of it being repealed in terms of the Bill before us, will still maintain the position whereby a person who is a Bantu will not be able to receive any of the additional benefits that are provided for in this definition of a war veteran, by virtue of the particular proviso. I do ask that the hon. the Deputy Minister in considering this matter should give further consideration to this definition. If it was permissible we on this side of the House would move the deletion of that proviso but I understand that in terms of the rules it is impossible to do so at this stage, because it would extend the scope of the Bill and result in an increase in expenditure. Therefore only the Deputy Minister who is handling the Bill would be able to delete that particular provisio. However, I wish to place on record that this side of the House is convinced that this proviso is not necessary and that it would be possible to proceed with this Bill in spite of the fact mentioned by the Deputy Minister that a number of Bantu persons fall under the Bantu homelands. But in terms of other clauses of the Bill it will, with the administration of the Act, be possible for certain portions of this legislation to be administered and dealt with by other departments. There are Bantu persons who are war veterans, but who are not receiving such a pension and are instead receiving an old-age pension. Here I am referring to the Bantu who come under the laws of the Republic and the legislation that is now before us. So I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give further consideration to this matter as we believe that it is unnecessary to continue with this particular proviso, which precludes a section of the community when one should be considering as a whole all members of the community, irrespective of race, who perform war-time service in terms of the definition as it stands specifying in which wars these persons have served. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give further consideration to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the reply to the question whether the various pensions will retain their identities, is yes. They will still remain exactly the same. The definition of “war veteran” remains precisely the same and a person who is medically unfit and under the age of 60 years, will still be able to receive a veteran’s pension as at present. As far as the one group referred to by the hon. member is concerned, the hon. member is quite correct in saying that no mention is made of race in this Bill. The hon. member is also correct, however, when he refers to the proviso which reads “but does not include any person who, immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, was not a war veteran in terms of any law then in force”. In other words, this excludes people who were excluded prior to this legislation and the hon. member is quite correct that there is a group who is perhaps not being excluded. In terms of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act that group now falls under the homelands. As I also said in my Second Reading speech, anything which I might put into this Act would not apply in a homeland.

What about outside the homelands?

There are still a few Bantu outside the homelands who are concerned in this matter, but we do not want to grant them any benefits which may eventually have to be carried by the homelands concerned. For that reason absolutely nothing is being given to them. The hon. member also knows that the total administration of pensions has been handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration by proclamation. I think this answers all the hon. member’s questions.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry but we on this side of the House are simply unable to accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation in regard to this definition. We cannot agree with it. Yesterday, in his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Deputy Minister said the same thing he said today, and that is that he cannot place a burden on the department at this stage since it may subsequently have to be carried by the homelands. I think that he is completely mistaken in that approach. Firstly: The Bantu who rendered war service, did not do so for the homelands, but for South Africa. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister said that if he transferred the burden, he would also have to transfer the funds. That is quite correct. These people rendered service to South Africa and they should derive the benefit from that. In that case there would be no difference between the Bantu outside the homelands and those within the homelands; they would both get the same.

Order! I do not want the hon. member to go too far because we are not really dealing here with that category of pensioners. We are dealing here exclusively with the details of the Bill as we have it before us.

But, Mr. Chairman, with all respect, the Bill excludes these people while in our opinion they are entitled to it.

Yes, I am aware of that. In my opinion, the hon. member could have discussed this at the Second Reading. He may not do so in the Committee Stage. However, I shall allow the hon. member to state his case in broad outline, but I do not want him to elaborate on it.

I shall not elaborate on it, Sir, but would you please allow me to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are people in South Africa today who are drawing war pensions from, for example, Great Britain, Germany, France and other countries? Those pensions are carried by the Government concerned. It seems to me that this is a similar case and that the pensions due to those people living in the homelands, should come from the funds of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member that this proviso in precisely the same wording was contained in the Act of 1968. I cannot see how the hon. member can argue this matter now, because it was taken in its entirety from the Act. The same effect and the same arguments which applied then, still apply. I can see no difference whatsoever.

We do not say that there is a difference …

You just wanted to point something out to me? Very well, I accept that you have pointed it out to me.

But we say it should be changed.

Mr. Chairman, this matter is not as easy as the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks it is. Admittedly this definition has always been applied to the Bantu ex-servicemen but the reason for it has never been given before as it was given by the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday. The reason he has given is a new reason altogether. The excuse he gave is that the homelands’ governments must look after these people themselves. That is what we are objecting to. We say that the reason he has given is not a valid one. He is taking a completely new line now. In view of the fact that we are not allowed to discuss this matter, I want to ask whether it would be permissible for me to move an amendment deleting all the words in lines 4, 5 and 6?

The hon member may move an amendment and I shall consider it, but it may fall entirely beyond the scope of this Bill.

Yes, Sir, I want to move as an amendment—

Order! I have considered the amendment but am unable to accept it as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill to a class of persons not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time and will involve increased expenditure requiring the State President’s recommendation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, this clause which deals with the payment of social pensions also deals with the question of additional and supplementary allowances. I particularly would like to refer to paragraph (c) which deals with the position concerning the payment of an attendant’s allowance. I should like some further information particularly in regard to blind persons. Paragraph (a) of this clause states that the Minister may pay to aged, blind and disabled persons and war veterants old-age pensions, blind persons’ pensions, disability pensions and veterans’ pensions, respectively and in terms of paragraph (c)—

I should like greater clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the expression “physical or mental condition” as a result of which persons require regular attendance, particularly in regard to blind persons. Obviously the interpretation of the physical and mental condition will to a certain extend depend on medical evidence being submitted by a private medical practitioner or by a district surgeon. I should like further information concerning the blind person, because, although it is provided that all categories of social pensioners may qualify for this attendant’s allowance, it would appear that there are blind persons who have no other disability apart from that of blindness. In those cases the department has not seen fit to classify these persons as being of a physical condition requiring the attendance of another person so as to qualify for the attendant’s allowance as provided for in paragraph (c). A person who qualifies for this allowance receives an extra R10 per month.

I should therefore like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give an indication how this affects the blind person as far as that particular group of social pensioners are concerned. Some of them are not able to live alone and have to have someone to live with them in order to assist them in their everyday needs. The physical disability of these persons is, however, only that of blindness. They do not have any other physical disability. The physical disability is, however, of such a nature that it is often dangerous for these people to live alone. They do require someone to assist them. If they have no members of the family or other means to assist them, it would mean that these people would be precluded from qualifying for the attendant’s allowance in view of the interpretation placed on the words “physical condition”, which means that a person would have to have some other physical disability to qualify for the attendant’s allowance. These blind persons invariably have considerable additional expenses which other social pensioners do not have. Some of them require guide dogs and other means to assist them. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give greater detail concerning the definition of “physical condition” as pertaining to blind pensioners.

Mr. Chairman, the position is exactly the same as it was before. Blindness per se—as such—is not considered to be that type of condition that does entitle a person to an extra amount. In actual fact, it will only be a further disability which will bring him within that category.

Is that the position as now provided in the clause?

Yes. It is exactly the same as it was in the 1968 Act. There is no difference in the definition.

It is therefore purely a question of the interpretation that is placed on the word “physical”?

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for this definition to be clearly stated. I think it is up to the hon. the Deputy Minister to take it upon himself to alter this clause so that those people who are blind can be given a special allowance for attendance, even if their physical condition, other than their blindness, is normal. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I do that a man who is blind has to have help to guide him even in his own home. What happens when he goes into the bathroom? What happens when he has to eat? Who goes to the fridge; who takes the things out of the fridge for him? He has to have someone to do these things for him and, as I mentioned to the hon. member for Umbilo, many of these people have guide-dogs. Somebody has to prepare the food for the dog. Who is going to do that? A blind person cannot get this done by somebody else free of charge, unless he is living in a home for blind people. If he were living in such a home, I could understand it. I think we have an opportunity now to amend this clause, and I think it is up to the hon. the Deputy Minister to do that as soon as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this clause brings about a change in the existing position in so far as the various Acts which are now being repealed, are concerned. A person who is not a South African citizen is now able to qualify for a social pension if he has been resident in the Republic for a period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of his application. Then, Sir, there are further conditions which apply to such a person. He is also entitled to a social pension if he is allowed in terms of any provision of the Aliens Act to be permanently resident in the Republic or if he has been exempted in terms of any such provision from the provisions of section 2(a) of that Act for an unspecified period. I would like some clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister concerning the actual period required for such a person to qualify, because there appears to be an additional provision that such an applicant must have been given permission to reside permanently in the Republic.

My question to the Deputy Minister is: Is the period of five years which is laid down here reckoned to be a period of five years prior to such a person making his application, or is it reckoned from the time when he was granted permanent residence in the Republic in terms of the Aliens Act? I ask this question because the word “and” in line 30 seems to imply that this is an additional provision to the five-year requirement, and there may be a difference between the time when a person takes up residence in South Africa and the time when he is actually granted permanent residence in terms of the Aliens Act. I should, therefore, like to have some clarity in regard to the actual period of five years which is laid down in this clause.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I refer to paragraph (c)(iii) of this clause. This paragraph refers to a person who has entered the Republic from other territories or other countries. This paragraph appears to have a very wide scope. It would appear that the Minister would have to name a specific country or territory in order to exclude the requirement of a residential qualification, as provided for in paragraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii). In other words, the Minister has to name the specific country or territory concerned before such a person is excluded from the provisions of paragraphs (c)(i) and (ii). I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has any powers to take into account cases such as the following, which do occur from time to time: For instance, in one particular case an immigrant came into the country accompanied by his aged mother. After a short period of only three years the son of this elderly lady died, and it meant that that aged person was left without any assistance. Yet she would not be able to qualify for a social pension in terms of the legislation now before us, unless the hon. the Minister had specifically named the country that that person had come from as being a country in respect of which persons would be excluded from the other residential qualifications.

From information I received some time ago, it would appear that the Minister and the department restrict this type of concession to persons who have come from Angola, which is mentioned in this clause, as well as from the Congo, Tanzania and Kenya. Therefore, as the clause now stands, it would appear that if a person requires assistance urgently, it would be necessary for the Minister to name his country of origin, unless he has come from one of the countries which has, in terms of the existing position, already been specified. I do hope that there is some administrative way in which this problem can be overcome so that, instead of having to name a territory or country for such a person to obtain assistance, other ways may be found, perhaps in terms of later clauses of this Bill, to help such applicants. I should also like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an indication of the number of countries that have been specified already, in other words, in respect of which persons receive special consideration as far as these residential qualifications are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to react to the hon. member’s question concerning the period of five years mentioned in paragraph (c)(ii). The period of five years from a person’s entry into the Republic need not correspond to the period of five years preceding his application. The Act provides that the period of five years shall be a period dating back from the date of the application. If a person had obtained entry in terms of the Aliens Act within a period of, say, three years prior to that date, he would still qualify for this pension.

Therefore it is the date of arrival which counts?

Yes, it is the date of arrival. He must have been in the Republic for a period of five years. Actually I cannot imagine that there will be two different periods; I think the two periods will always correspond, but the point is that the Act does not distinguish in this regard. The Act simply provides for a period of five years preceding the date of application. Therefore, if we were to get a case of a person who did not have to make any application or obtain any permit originally, and who subsequently had to obtain a permit, his full period of residence would count, and he would still qualify.

The hon. member also put a question concerning those countries which are specified. The countries which he mentioned are already specified. To my mind this provision is wide enough to allow the Minister a further discretion in the kind of case mentioned by the hon. member. In such a case the Minister would specify the country of origin, as one of the countries to which the conditions contained in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) did not apply.

Then he would have to do it for everybody?

It would actually depend on the number of people involved. It would depend on certain factors which the Minister would have to take into account. He would certainly not make an exception for one person, for instance, one coming from Timbuctoo. If, for instance, there were a group of people from a certain place, people who would be affected by this, he would—after taking the other factors into consideration—probably specify that country of origin as one of the countries referred to in sub-paragraph (iii).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Sir, I would like to say a word or two about clause 4. Earlier during this session we had an opportunity of discussing the question of pensions with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We then raised the question as to whether the public was sufficiently and fully informed as to what the regulations contained with regard to the various formulae and the conditions under which persons are entitled to pensions in terms of our law. It was then said that information is always available and that there are district pension offices all over the country and that any person wishing to know what his rights are merely has to make inquiries at the district office. But I feel that it is of very great importance that the public should constantly be informed what their rights are as far as pensions are concerned. This clause provides that any person who claims a social pension shall apply to a district pension officer, and that the district pension officer shall, after such inquiry as he may consider necessary, and, in the case of any person who applies for a social pension on the ground that he is a disabled person, after such person has been examined by a district surgeon, send the application to the Secretary. But because the question of pensions is of a community nature and affects the lives of 112 000 persons at the moment and will affect more and more as time goes on, and in view of the constant changes in practice, such as were announced here earlier today in the Budget proposals, I think it is important that from time to time, through Press announcements, we should bring home to the public precisely what their rights and privileges are in terms of the Pensions Act. Sir, I think this is relevant.

It is relevant, but the hon. member should not repeat himself so many times.

I merely wish to emphasize this point, and I do so because on the last occasion this matter was raised, the answer given to us was not encouraging. The Minister’s department is aware of the fact that we constantly receive letters from people who, because they have a certain amount of money, believe that they are precluded from applying for a pension. I had a case today where a man who came up to my office said to me that he was receiving a pension and that he has a little cottage which he wants to sell because he and his wife can no longer run the cottage. They are both in receipt of a pension, and the cottage is probably worth about R10 000. In terms of the present formula, the value of the cottage does not come into the picture at all and they both receive their full pension. He now wants to sell the house but he is afraid that if he sells it for, say, R14 000 or R15 000, he and his wife may then lose their pensions. I had to explain the formula to this person and reassure him that there was no danger at all of their losing their pensions; that they could sell the house for about R22 500 to R23 000, and that they would still be entitled to the full pension because of the way in which the formula is applied in assessing the income that they derive from the capital funds that they have in hand. I can show the hon. the Deputy Minister many letters on this aspect. I have had inquiries from numerous people who are completely befuddled as to what their rights are, and I think in the interests of the community, particularly those people who do not have the wherewithal to consult the right people or even, in some cases, to travel to the district pension office, the more information we can disseminate through the Press, in both languages, and even through the secretaries of the old-age homes, the better it would be for all concerned.

Then I want to say this just to re-emphasize my point: A retired medical man, who is working in a part-time capacity in one of the day hospitals in the city and who was present at a meeting where I discussed this question of pensions and the meaning of the formulae, asked me whether I would send him a copy of the regulations. He said that numerous inquiries were addressed to him by people from time to time, and that if he had the regulations it would be so much easier and simpler for him to answer their questions immediately. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will bear that in mind in his discussions with his department, who, I am sure, will be only too happy to help him to find some means to propagate this information on a much wider scale than is the case today.

I want to support the hon. member for Jeppes in his appeal to the hon. the Minister. We are dealing now with a Bill which consolidates the measures as far as pensions are concerned. I think it is high time that this was done and I think it is all to the good but at the same time I am sorry the hon. the Minister has not gone further in regard to the application form for pensions, in view of the fact that all applications will now be computerized. As the hon. member for Jeppes has said, when people go to make an application for a pension they go there with the greatest trepidation; it is not easy to complete the forms. You can imagine these people of 66 years of age, some of them suffering from disabilities, having to sit there and wait for a long time and then to start completing the application form. In nine cases out of ten they fill it in wrongly and they have to come back; so they become frustrated. Some time ago the former Minister was kind enough to produce a little illustrated booklet showing who may and how one should apply for a pension. But of course we must appreciate that this booklet becomes out of date because every year, as the result of our efforts on this side of the House, pensions are increased and naturally the booklet so becomes out of date. But I would like to prevail upon the Minister to do something about it. The former member for Kensington, Mr. Moore, pleaded for the streamlining of pensions to try to make the application form a little simpler. You get a pensioner coming along to the pension officer, completely uninformed; the pension officer start asking him questions. They ask him whether he has any money and he says he has some in a building society. He is then told to go home and get the relevant documents. Then off the trundles again, maybe he has to take a taxi to get the building society documents and bring them along. Then they may ask him whether he has any other money and he says that he has some money in the post office, but that he did not bring his post office book along. So these people have to go backwards and forwards and eventually become so frustrated that eventually they go to their members of Parliament. They go to my colleague here, the hon. member for Umbilo, or they come to myself and others and we have to try to explain what the position is. Now the memorandum the hon. the Minister gives us every year is a wonderful help to us because it sets out the position very clearly but it takes a long time to study. If you look at the position the one way, you find that the man qualifies but if you look at it another way, you find that he does not qualify. So what do you do in the end? You sit down and write a letter to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and you would expect to get a reply quite promptly but you find that you have to wait two or three months before you get a reply to tell you exactly why the applicant does not qualify. Even the local pension offices quite often disqualify persons and then advise them to apply direct to the Head Office in Pretoria. In regard to this application form, I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that he has this big computer, to see whether he cannot do something about streamlining the application forms. He should also reintroduce the little booklet I mentioned, not because it becomes outdated as the result of our efforts from this side of the House, but to have the basic requirements clearly set out. If a person wants to apply for a pension, he can go to the post office or pension office and get the booklet and knows exactly what to do. It will save the department a lot of work and it will save us a lot of work. Then I am quite certain that the hon member for Jeppes will probably find that these people who are left out, will now be able to apply for pension benefits.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the Second Reading debate the hon the Deputy Minister said he was prepared to have notices put up at post offices I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, however, to investigate the possibility of an information booklet being issued further, I believe that although notices at the post offices will help it would be much better if such a booklet would be available at the post offices.

Order! I allowed the hon. member for Salt River a very wide discussion on the matter, but actually during the Committee Stage we are dealing with the details of a clause only. I am very lenient, but I now request the hon. member to return to the details of the clause. During the Second Reading debate the hon. member could profitably have discussed the matter he is now dealing with.

During the Second Reading debate, the hon. Minister said he would help these people by putting up a notice at post offices. This clause deals with the application for a social pension, and it is for that very reason that I am now raising this matter. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to go one step further and to help them in their applications. He will succeed in doing so if he makes an information booklet available at the post offices. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give attention to this.

That may be so, but the point is that we are now dealing with the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the first subsection of this clause which stipulates certain requirements which an applicant for a social pension must meet. First of all it will be necessary to apply by means of the prescribed form. In line 44 I read—

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is satisfied that the district pension officer has sufficient discretion to dispense with the necessity of producing certain documents, because the clause makes it clear that certain information shall be produced. However, as I have mentioned earlier provision is made in respect of “such particulars and information … as the district pension officer may require”.

I mention this point because in many instances there are persons who apply for a social pension and then they are required to produce certain documents and proof of various financial matters. Sometimes they are required to produce a death certificate of a husband who might have died many years previously and they are then unable to do so. They may also have to produce a copy of the will of somebody who died many years previously. They may also be required to produce the terms of a trust fund whereby they are enjoying certain usufruct from such a trust fund. These people have tremendous difficulty in producing such documents. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister is therefore whether a district pension officer will be sufficiently empowered in terms of this legislation to dispense with the necessity of producing certain documents in terms of the provisions that they shall furnish particulars and information which may be required.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the representations made by the hon. members for Jeppes, Salt River and Durban Central first. I quite agree with the hon. members that one should furnish as much information as possible. I have suggested in my Second Reading speech, however, that this is a little easier said than done, because when we issued an information booklet at the time, these people did not understand it anyway. I think one should make it as simple as possible. That is why I said yesterday that as far as I was concerned one should rather make the necessary points of contact available to the aged people so that they may know where they can obtain the necessary information, for example that at such and such an office they can obtain this type of information, and certain other information at another office. It is no use giving them a booklet which they can understand as little as they can understand Greek.

Then make it simple.

That is the problem. As I have said, it is easier said in this House than done in practice. I want to give the assurance that my department will do everything in its power to furnish as much information to them as possible, if the hon. members on the opposite side will promise me that they will do their work as Members of Parliament faithfully, and will help all the aged people with their pensions.

We do that every day.

Yes, I know that my side of the House does that. I am not so sure about the opposite side.

But the hon. member for Germiston said that the people were not coming to him.

Listen, mine have all been taken care of.

The hon. member for Umbilo dealt with what was required by the district pension officer. The requirements are usually determined by regulation. The required information is indicated in the application form which has to be completed. Sometimes, however, other documents are necessary in order to determine whether a person falls within a certain income group. The department may also need other documents to be able to determine a certain aspect. This is communicated orally to the persons concerned, but nothing can be accepted without proper proof to go with it. In fact the department is, as the hon. member has admitted more than once, very considerate in regard to this matter. Just an affidavit would perhaps be necessary and sufficient instead of a document that had got lost, but the department must satisfy itself that the amount it determines for a pension, or the money which allegedly accrues to any person on account of his income, is correct. That is all that is necessary here. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that the department will, as in the past, also in future do its utmost to help people without becoming excessively dogmatic about it and placing an onus on people which they cannot meet.

Does the district pension officer have a discretion?

He does not have a discretion, but in consultation with the Secretary he can determine what is really necessary. It does not cost one anything to ask where one has to go. All they have to do is to pick up the telephone and ring the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

That costs money.

Unfortunately everything in life costs money. All the aged person has do is to go to his Member of Parliament, who can then see to it that the money is paid out.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. the Minister but his reply was not very satisfactory. I do not think that he offered any solution. I know that he is new at this job, but I think that he realizes the difficulties. The hon. member for Germiston has the same difficulties we have, but he does not want to get up and make a speech.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to a suggestion of mine. The Department of the Interior with the new system they have with the population register they produce a fine brochure which is attached to the application form for the Book of Life. This brochure is quite good. The alternative is of course to have a facsimile of the application form. I think it does save much trouble and if you read the instructions on the brochure you do not make such a mess of the form. In the absence of handing out a facsimile with every application form you should have a instruction brochure. In doing so you can save the department a lot of time. The hon. the Minister must remember that these people are pensioners. They are 60, 65 years of age or older and cannot go backwards and forwards. Therefore he must assist them wherever possible. His department wants the information and we are trying to help them. They must produce the means of getting the exact information so as not to waste the time of the department. Moreover, it takes months before a person gets the pension. We are only trying to assist the hon. the Minister in his new job. He has come forward with new legislation and I hope he can do something about this proposal.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether other hon. members have seen the effect of the terms of this clause, but it does cause a certain amount of hard feelings and hardship amongst pensioners. Where reference is made to the Secretary in this clause, I take it that it means that the Secretary is allowed to delegate the powers to various other people. According to the terms of this particular clause if a pensioner misuses his social pension, the Secretary may suspend payment thereof in order that it may be administered subject to such conditions as he may determine. It is my experience that that is done from the local office. I take it that the local office can act for the Secretary. The definition of a “Secretary” is not very clear to me, however.

I take it that that is the position and that every suspension of a pension cannot go to the Secretary. What actually happens is that a person may have his pension suspended or it may be decided that the pension should be paid to somebody else so that it is not abused. The trouble is that you sometimes find that these pensions are paid to certain societies attached to church organizations and what is more, the person who administers this pension money is a social welfare officer, sometimes very young and probably inexperienced. I had the case of a person who spent a time in gaol, not as a result of alcohol, but because of certain other troubles and who, when he came out received a substantial pension payment. He then came down to Cape Town, looked for a room and stayed in Sea Point. When he went to re-establish his rights as far as his pension was concerned, he was told that he would have to go to some organization in Wynberg, some eight or nine miles away and apply there for his pension monthly. This organization would administer his pension, because they felt that he would not be able to look after his own affairs. Be that as it may, the social welfare officer in that organization— it was not the department itself—decided that the room this man was living in was too expensive and that he should get a cheaper room. He therefore had to move out of his room in Sea Point to a cheaper room, notwithstanding the fact that he was entitled to his full pension. But he still had to catch the train and bus to Wynberg every month although he was a cripple. His clothing was very poor and he asked them for money to buy a suit, but they told him that he should get a cheaper suit somewhere else and that they would allow him something like R10 for a new suit.

At that stage, and I think other hon. members have also had similar experiences, the case came to me and I asked this organization what money stood to the credit of this individual. They were not prepared to tell me and they were also not prepared to tell me on what basis they handed out the money every month. Notwithstanding the fact that this man was a pensioner, he was becoming destitute. I admit that there are certain cases where people are alcoholics and this require a certain amount of control, but I think that if money is withheld it should be withheld by the department and not handed out to other organizations or persons. When other organizations handle this money we do not always know what happens to it, what happens to the interest on that money if it is invested, or whether the pensioner can find out at any time how much money is standing to his credit. I think there is merit in this particular clause, but I wonder how often these cases are reviewed and these organizations asked for statements as to how much money they are holding and what is happening to it. Pensioners have no idea of the money standing to their credit because they are not given the information when they try to find out. I was also unable to find out and was told quite plainly that they are not prepared to tell me how much money stood to the credit of this man. I told them that the man needed clothing, but they told me that they went into the matter and that they were of the opinion that he could acquire clothing more cheaply. It was not for them to decide, because it was this man’s money. One does not want to say this is an abuse, but I think it can lead to incompetent administration. I do not think those people are competent enough to administer these funds. I think that if moneys are withheld they should be administered directly by the department and not by other organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell hon. members that I should like very much to help where I can, and that I should like to explain how the legislation works, but it is terribly difficult when the hon. member for Salt River comes with a case without giving me names and addresses so that we cannot identify the case. I cannot find out whether something has gone wrong and whether the department should intervene. The hon. member for Salt River will probably get annoyed if I do not give him a complete reply to this. But it is simply impossible for me to do so. He should like us to administer the money ourselves when in our opinion it is being abused, as I understand his argument. Let me just tell the hon. member that we are not prepared to do that. The department cannot do it, because it would mean that there would be too many separate administrations of money. When we find out that certain of the pension moneys are abused, we find a responsible person to administer that money on behalf of the aged person or pensioner. I do not by any means blame those people who refused to tell the hon. member for Salt River what was standing to the credit of the pensioner concerned. As a matter of fact, this is proof to me that those people are indeed administering that money well. What the balance of the pensioner’s money is, is no concern of other people’s. What would you think of a bank manager if I went to him and asked him how much money the hon. member for Salt River had in the bank, and he told me that? The example the hon. member for Salt River gave me is to me a perfect example of proper administration of that money. This clause is an exceptionally good clause in the Bill, because it puts the department in a position to retain some control of an aged person or people like that. They are in need of control. They can tell those people: “Look, you are an alcoholic,” or “You are simply unable to handle that money; we are going to give to your daughter to administer it for you”, or something to that effect. There are thousands of cases like that, and I do not think the department can reasonably be expected to administer those cases as well.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot disclose the name of the organization in this House and I do not intend doing so. Neither do I intend disclosing the name of the pensioner. However, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will realize— his own Secretary will probably tell him— that there are organizations that do administer these pensions. Whether they had the right to tell me that or not is another thing.

It is the principle that matters.

The principle is all wrong. Notwithstanding what the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks, the money paid by the State to a pensioner should be administered by the department and nobody else. I think that it is all wrong that the money should be handed out to other individuals or organizations. I am not prepared to make public in this House what organizations are handling this money. The point is that, for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that the department cannot do it, is just rubbish, the department is handing out the money, but he tells me that they cannot look after it. It is ridiculous!

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the Second Reading debate I raised a few matters with the hon. the Deputy Minister, but his replies were not adequate in respect of my plea that he should consider appointing also postmasters as district pension officers. His excuse was that it would be an unpractical measure and that the Government could not apply dual control in such instances. To me this is not an excuse because in many instances one department acts as an agent for another department. There are many examples, but I do not want to mention them. Officials of the Department of Justice, for example, often act on behalf of the Department of Bantu Administration as Bantu Affairs Commissioners. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister should not reject this idea altogether, but that he and his department should go into the matter and consider establishing post offices as information centres and appointing postmasters as district pension officers.

I am very pleased the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to give consideration to the appointment of more than one district pension officer in Johannesburg and not just one who will be in the centre of Johannesburg. But this will cause problems; it will involve additional expenditure for the department. I do not know how many of them he is going to appoint in the peri-urban areas, but this will cause problems. I would just like to request the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this idea before he rejects it finally.

Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, one department can sometimes act as an agent for another department. In fact the Department of Posts and Telegraphs acts as an agent on our behalf in regard to the payment of pensions. But if we were to appoint a postmaster as a district pension officer, that would mean that such a person would have to be placed wholly under our control. It would mean that this person would have to know the Act and all the regulations. He would have to fulfil certain obligations in terms of the Act. He would be under the control of his Secretary, as well as under the control of the Secretary of this Department. In the light of this fact it would be a totally impossible position. However, it is a completely different matter when one department acts as an agent for another. This is done simply for the sake of convenience and as an intermediary. I am afraid we cannot give consideration to the hon. member’s request.

While the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to appoint them as district pension officers, will he, as he has just said, make it possible for them to act as a channel, an agency or intermediary for the department?

To do what?

To receive applications and have information available for people who come to apply.

In our opinion, that is unnecessary. The other suggestion made by the hon. member, is in my opinion a good one. The hon. member said that in a big city such as Johannesburg more than one district pension officer should be appointed. He suggested that one should see to the needs of an area and should appoint more of these people in order to serve the public more effectively. That is a good idea and I shall definitely give attention to that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, clause 17 deals with regulations. I want to refer specifically to paragraph (1) of clause 17, i.e. the administration of social pensions. I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the appeal which I directed to him yesterday to which he has not replied. This concerns an urgent new approach to the publicizing of conditions under which people are eligible for blind or disability pensions. If the hon. the Minister is in a position to make regulations regarding the administration of these pensions, is he not prepared to give some consideration to making it as public as possible to all people who may be eligible? If he would give me this assurance, I would be very happy to receive it.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Berea was here a moment ago when I dealt with this very point.

Unfortunately I was called out.

I expressed my sympathy then and said that I would do my best to give as much information as possible. We will try and devise means whereby we will give as much information to the public as possible in as simple a manner as possible. As the hon. member knows, this Bill and everything that goes with it isn’t quite as easy as what people think at first blush. We must try and simplify the information that we give to people and we must try to make points available to them where they can get the necessary information and forms to fill in. I feel very sympathetic towards that and I give an undertaking that I will do it.

Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity of bringing something to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister, something which he does not perhaps quite realize. A man who qualifies for a social pension and who is getting more than R58 from another pension cannot get a social pension. I think that is correct. For instance, if a man has an injury and he receives a pension of R59 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he does not qualify for a social pension. The same applies to people who work on the mines. The department has had representations about this from time to time, and I think the time has come for the Minister to give consideration to the two separate sets of circumstances. When a man is receiving a sum of money which has only to do with compensation for an accident or for ill-health as a result of his work, I think he should not be disqualified from receiving a social pension, whether he qualifies or not. The fact that he is receiving a pension by way of compensation for injury or ill-health as a result of his work should not disqualify him in respect of the social pension. This has been asked for from time to time, and it has been refused. I think the time has now come for this newly appointed Deputy Minister to give this matter careful consideration; he should see whether the time has not arrived when these people who suffer disability through injury or illness contracted through their work should not be disqualified for a social pension.

Mr. Chairman, I shall give consideration to all these aspects, but I want to tell the hon. member at this stage that that will be a very difficult matter, because it amounts to abolishing the means test for some people and not for others. This might cause us many problems, and it might give rise to still further problems. It could mean that the people from whom an ordinary civil pensioner receives his pension, might think, “My contribution may be low, because this man will in any event receive a social pension”. That is the evil we must guard against. Here I am referring to the ordinary pension scheme where the people in charge may think, “Let us keep our payments low so that they may remain within the limits of the means test; then our pensioners will receive an additional social pension”. That is really one of the reasons why the means test stands at R58. However, I want to say to the hon. member that we shall go into this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this connection. I want to know why a person does not receive a social pension as well if he is in receipt of a civil pension of R59. In other words, if he has an ordinary income of say R60 per month, he has the right to receive a social pension, but if he is in receipt of a civil pension of R59 per month, he is subject to restrictions. This has nothing to do with the Budget; I think that this is in terms of a regulation.

Order! The hon. member is very much out of order now. We are not dealing with the principle of pensions now, or with what scales are to be applied. We are now dealing with regulations, in terms of clause 17.

But, with respect, Mr. Chairman, it is in terms of these regulations that that restriction was laid down.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Sir, I do not intend dealing with the whole aspect of the means test, but it is clear from this clause that the means test will be embodied entirely in the regulations promulgated in terms of this clause. Sir, I would like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to what he has just said in reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member referred to the income ceiling of R58 per month as a pension from another source, and the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply said that this was due to the fact that civil pensions are set at a figure of R59 per month. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether, in view of the announcement in the Budget speech today, the new regulations will take into account the fact that the minimum civil pension is to be increased. I take it that in promulgating the regulations, the department will take due cognizance of the fact that the ceiling is no longer R59 per month, but is to be increased.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this measure was adjourned last night, I was saying that South Africa is a much sought-after country. But in the same breath we also want to state that there is no room in this country for the in-infiltrator, that we have no need of him here and that there is no place for the undesirable type of person who enters our country illegally. In that respect I agree with the hon. member for Green Point when he says that in cases of that nature we are an “unwelcome host”. Sir, our doors are open to the decent, respectable type of immigrant who comes here in good faith and whose intention it is to settle here in South Africa, whether temporarily or permanently.

Sir, the provisions of clause 1 of this measure are quite clear and quire simple. There are only three kinds of aliens as laid down in section 4 of the Aliens Act of 1937. The first type comprises those who possess a permanent residence permit in terms of section 5 and then, thirdly, there are those who enjoy exemption in terms of the provisions of section 7 and 7bis. All other aliens are here illegally. Every immigrant and every South African citizen are aware of these provisions. We welcome the concept in this Bill that such an illegal alien may not be harboured in this country. We accept the concept that he may not be employed here, and that if he possesses a temporary residence permit, the limits of his permit may not be exceeded.

But, Sir, like the hon. member for Green Point, I also have something of a problem in regard to the provisions of the proposed new section 5ter(1)(b) concerning entering into an agreement with an alien for the conduct of a business. I should like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the provisions of the Aliens Act, Act No. 1 of 1937, and particularly to section 1 thereof, which provides a clear definition of an allien, i.e. someone who is not a British subject or Union national (Staatsburger) by birth. In this Bill we are apparently only concerned with aliens who are in fact inside our borders and who are exceeding the limits of their residence permits. That is why I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Green Point that, as I see it, the provisions in this connection are not quite clear, since I do not think our aim is here to try and limit trade or business with aliens abroad, but that we are only concerned here with those aliens who are already inside our borders. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister in a friendly way in case he has not yet come to a firm decision in this respect.

Then I want to say a few words concerning the presumption created in clause 1 of the Bill. In my opinion it is a very reasonable presumption and it is quite easy to discharge the onus of proof. All the citizen or the immigrant has to do, is to satisfy himself in regard to the legality or otherwise of the residence of the alien. This he can ascertain quite easily. It is merely a question of fact; the man resides on the premises or he does not reside there; he harbours the person or he does not harbour the person. I think that a simple explanation, if the facts justify it, can clear this matter up completely.

Sir, then I come to clause 2. This clause in fact provides the Minister with an important and essential right, a right the Minister did not have before. As the Act reads at present, he was unable to replace any exemption issued in terms of the provisions of section 7 and 7bis by a temporary permit unless specific application for it was made by the alien. This very definitely created major problems for the Minister. All he was able to do, was to withdraw the exemption and then deport the alien from the country; no other procedure was available to him. Sir, we accept that this is a very drastic measure because the Minister only had the right to withdraw the exemption and deport the alien from the country. That was a very drastic measure, and I believe that under certain circumstances this could involve a great deal of inconvenience, embarrassment and probably also a great deal of hardship. That is why I want to welcome this measure. This is also to the advantage of the alien as such because it now gives him the opportunity, if anything irregular has occurred, which would otherwise have justified the withdrawal of the temporary residence permit, of rehabilitating himself in cases of offences of a less serious nature. I therefore believe that this measure will be a welcome measure also in this respect and that it will be in favour of the alien.

In regard to clause 3, the penalty provision, we want to endorse this wholeheartedly, and I believe that on account of the large-scale illegal traffic taking place in this connection, the enormous—if I may use the English term—“racket” which exists, of people who repeatedly smuggle aliens into the country illegally, because— in spite of their being convicted, the light penalty and on account of the financial gain involved—it pays these people to keep on with this practice. I am now speaking from experience, particularly the eastern parts of the Transvaal adjoining the Swazi territory and the Portuguese territory of Mozambique, where infiltration takes place which is sometimes difficult to bring to book. For that reason I am in favour of this increased penalty provided for here.

I want to refer to clause 4. This indicates the categories of persons who may be exempted by the hon. the Minister. I believe that this is fully justified for the reasons mentioned by the hon. the Minister. But I also want to say that the position in this country has changed in recent years and that other machinery is now available to us. For example we have the systematic application of our group areas machinery which, as I see it, controls the position efficiently and quite effectively. There is also the easy identification which we have in respect of people, by means of reference documents and other identity documents with which it is quite simple to ascertain the identity of a person. Apart from that, these communities have actually been established permanently and effectively and the movements to and fro are not as fluid as previously. In fact, our traffic is fast and there is so much temporary visiting, and so forth, that I think provision will definitely have to be made for this. Then there is also the more realistic handling of dignitaries to whom exemption may be granted in terms of clause 7. But I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Green Point in this connection when he also welcomed the greater flexibility with which this measure will be applied. He said he regarded it as “a timid step forward”. Sir, I would rather call that R25 he donated to Nusas, “a timid step forward”. Sir, I regard this as a very wise and essential step in the light of the changed circumstances and the measures which exist at present. But as I see it this is a step which must be approached with great circumspection and I definitely believe that we cannot do it in the overhasty manner pleaded for by the hon. member for Green Point last night. Therefore I believe that unless we want to cause a great deal of disruption, unless we want to find ourselves on the verge of chaos, it is essential that we retain those reservations we still have, and we welcome the thought that as far as the Orange Free State is concerned the status quo will remain and also as far as the position in Northern Natal is concerned, otherwise we could certainly expect a rebellion and a secession from the Republic by these areas within the foreseeable future, if we were to wait in order to safeguard the position. I want to suggest that if we did not embody this reservation in our legislation, this reservation in respect of an illegal influx of Asians into this country, we could and we would have—in view of the developments taking place in Africa to the north of us as we see it today— shared the same lot as Britain today in this respect. Therefore I think it is a good and wise thing for us to approach these reservations with circumspection and that, if we were to plead for and recommend exemptions, we should do so in a cautious manner.

I want to refer to clause 5 and then I also want to refer to reports which appeared in the newspapers in this connection. I refer to the following report in The Argus of not so long ago—

Then they give a list of offences and transgressions and go on to say—

I suggest that this in fact a slanted presentation of the facts, because the amendments proposed in clause 5, are merely a rearrangement. It merely comprises the deletion of subsection (c) of section 43 of Act 59 of 1972 and the transfer thereof, in the form in which it appears now, to schedule 1 of Act 59 of 1972. Apart from affecting the position of a prohibited immigrant, it remains the same in practice, and there is no change whatsoever. The position is in fact that section 43(f) of Act 59 of 1972— that is, as the Act exists at present—already provides for a naturalized South African citizen to be removed as an undesirable resident if he is found guilty of an offence under the Immorality Act. Therefore I say that it is quite wrong of The Argus or the Press in general to try and create the impression that this is now being done under this legislation. Our present principal Act already provides for that.

It gives me pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo has expressed on several occasions this evening his agreement with my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, but there was one omission. As far as clause 4 is concerned the hon. member for Ermelo referred to the timid steps forward—a remark made by my hon. colleague. I think in this regard the hon. member for Ermelo has dutifully allied himself with the hon. the Deputy Minister who has taken these timid steps forward in regard to the relaxation of conditions applicable to and permits for travel issued to the Indian population of South Africa. However, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Ermelo to the fact that the South African Indian Council resolved as early as 1964 to request that the fee in connection with permits should be done away with and on several occasions since then, has asked for the removal of restrictions and not the relaxation of restrictions.

In so far as his reference to clause 5 is concerned, he says that the intention is practically the same. I hope to indicate during the course of my speech that there again, while we do not argue with him over the intention of the clause, the scope of the clause has been considerably broadened. Before I do that, I wish to reiterate that we on this side of the House welcome clause 2. Those of us who have had problems concerning people who have applied for permanent residence and whose applications have met with certain difficulties in the Department of Immigration, have found themselves in a very difficult position sometimes due to the fact that there may be a delay or uncertainty or suspense in regard to the issue of a temporary permit. I see that clause 2 does give authority to specific officials to exercise discretion in regard to these temporary permits. I believe it will eliminate difficulties which concern both the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Interior and as such we welcome it.

Reference has been made to clause 4 and here again we have made our attitude clear that we welcome the limited improvement in regard to the inter-provincial movement of Indians. It is an improvement on an archaic system that has been a bone of contention and source of frustration to many of our South African Indians, because when they are met with illness, death or domestic crises, before they can journey from one province to another, they have to get this permit which sometimes involves delay. This may lead to considerable frustration if, for example, the Department of Indian Affairs is closed and they have to make application at a police station. I believe that the hon. the Minister in his reply could indicate to us whether he in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs, and after due consultation with the South African Indian Council, which has made its position quite clear, could not see his way clear ultimately to remove the further restrictions. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech said that the issue of these permits had become an enormous task; he indicated that approximately 25 000 permits were issued during the course of a year. Actually the figures indicate that over the last seven years nearly 161 000 travel permits were issued. This is only half the picture because these figures only reflect those permits issued by the Department of Indian Affairs itself. Other departments entitled to issue permits—and I am told that the figures from these departments are not easily available—are the Department of Police, magistrates and in some instances the Department of the Interior. Therefore I believe one can say that this figure can easily be doubled and that round about a third of a million permits were issued in the course of seven years. It is an enormous task and I believe one has to highlight the question of fruitless expenditure which has been incurred as a result of the unproductive man-hours. This is a situation which has applied to virtually four State departments.

What is the other side of the coin? The other side of the coin is that there has been approximately—I must concede that this is an estimate—a third of a million Indians who have been involved at various times in making application for a permit. They too have not only suffered frustration but experienced a waste of their time. In many instances it means a loss of income to them. I can refer to a specific case because I had personal association with the applicant. This particular Indian, a professional man of high standing in Durban, had an appointment in Pretoria with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. In order to be sure that he could keep the appointment, it was necessary for him to fly to Johannesburg the day before. He stayed quite legally with his friends in an Indian area in Pretoria and subsequently he returned on the day he had the interview with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. However, before he could do that he had to go to get a permit from the Department of Indian Affairs and then having returned safely from his interview, he himself was required to take the permit and to surrender it to the Department of Indian Affairs. This particular man is a busy professional man who performs a task for his people under very difficult circumstances, because there are very few of these professional men who are able to render this particular service. One can just imagine the loss of revenue, the inconvenience to his patients and the difficulty he had in catching up with the lost time because of this, what I believe, unnecessary provision.

I want to come to clauses 5 and 6. I appreciate that the restrictions here apply to persons other than South African citizens by birth or descent. I submit—as I did originally to the hon. member for Ermelo —that I believe the scope has been broadened considerably. I want to make it quite clear again that we on this side of the House have no objection to the inclusion of the new provision in clause 6. However, I feel it is only fair to point out to the hon. the Minister that to my mind there will be greater problems in administration because the scope has been considerably broadened. The old provision only dealt with habit-forming drugs, a relatively small class of drugs with a relatively small use in medical circles and then under strict control, but now the provision in clause 6 of the Bill includes “dealing in, selling, supplying or being in possession of any substance from time to time referred to in Part I, II or III of the schedule to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971 (Act. No. 41 of 1971)”. This means that three schedules of drugs are now concerned. We have the prohibited dependence-producing substances, the dangerous dependence-producing substances which have been referred to as habit-forming drugs and then we have the potentially dangerous dependence-producing substances which are commonly referred to as the potentially harmful drugs. But I would say that whereas before we had a relatively small number of drugs involved we have literally hundreds of drugs involved under these various schedules. The provision in clause 6 refers to the dealing in, selling, supplying or being in possession of any substance and as far as dealing, selling, supplying or being in legal possession is concerned, I believe the situation is amply catered for under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, mainly in section 65 and 65bis of Act 13 of 1928. But when it comes to illegal possession we find that there are other provisions which now exist in the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act. These are referred to in sections 5, 10 (1) (c) and 10 (4) of that Act, namely Act 41 of 1971. Section 10 (4) is the presumptions section and this section lays down certain conditions under which potentially harmful drugs may be possessed legally by patients. Broadly speaking it lays down that dangerous dependence-producing drugs can be possessed by patients as long as they are not in excess of roughly one month’s supply. That is all right as far as it goes, but let us look at the scope of people who are legally entitled to handle, to supply and to be in possession of these drugs. Here I am referring particularly to the third schedule drugs, the potentially harmful drugs. We find that we have laid down in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and by subsequent regulation, 16 different categories of persons who are legally entitled under prescribed conditions to be in the possession of these drugs. You have the doctors, the dentists, the chemists and druggists, the veterinarians and certain types of people registered under the Nursing Act. You have certain scientists who are entitled to for purposes of research. You have certain people performing health services, for instance in clinics in out-lying areas. You also have captains of ships and officers in charge of aircraft. Just to give an example of what this could mean, you could have the case of a person taken into custody on the suspicion of being—and I realize the type of person involved may not be a South African-born citizen—in the possession of potentially harmful drugs. He could have on his person some tablets which had been duly ordered by a veterinarian for administration to his dog, but the presumption would be on this man to prove and to establish that they had been supplied to him in terms of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act. I believe this is a complicated procedure. I reiterate that we have no objection to this clause, but I do want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the clause could not be made a little more clear or more specific in so far as the term “possession” is concerned in view of the fact that illegal and legal possession of drugs is a complex matter with many connotations. I believe it would be of assistance to those who have to administer this Act if it were found possible to clarify the matter in the amendment to this particular clause. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this matter his consideration.

Mr. Sneaker, the hon. member for Berea dealt chiefly with two matters, one of which is the question of the mobility of the Indian population. I want to suggest that the hon. member for Berea, coming from Natal, is perhaps better equipped than many of us to speak about this subject. I am therefore not going to discuss it with him any further. Those ideas he raised here, which must in fact be given attention, will be given attention by the hon. the Minister. As regards the second subject raised here by the hon. member, i.e. the question of habit-forming drugs, I want to say that as I understand clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, what is actually being done here in terms of clause 5 is to remove drug offences from section 43 of the Act, and to include them in the Schedule so that action taken in respect of people who commit offences involving habit-forming drugs, may correspond to action taken in respect of persons who commit other offences in terms of Act 59 of 1972. That is how I understand it. I see nothing sinister or complicated in that. It is just that it is removed from one place and inserted in another so that these offenders can be dealt with in the same way as other offenders in terms of the relevant Act, i.e. the Admission of Aliens to South Africa Act. So much for the hon. member for Berea.

This Bill, the Aliens Control Bill, contains, as far as I am concerned, a compliment for South Africa. The fact that, by means of this Bill, we envisage combating this growing problem, in my opinion, embodies the compliment that South Africa, which is accused by Nusas men and other bodies of being a police state, is indeed such an attractive place that we cannot get rid of some of the aliens who come to our coasts. We have heard from the hon. the Minister that there are as many as 80 000 to 90 000 suspected aliens in South Africa whom we cannot get rid of. Apparently they are living here very happily. They are quite satisfied to remain here with us under circumstances of near statelessness without taking part in politics as long as they can just have the protection of law and order here together with the privilege of making a living. Apart from these people, we must also bear in mind that there are probably about a million or more so-called alien Bantu in South Africa who also brave the “terrible conditions” we have in South Africa to remain with us as guests; as far as we are concerned, they are undesirable guests, because we would like to see them return to their country of origin. That is specifically the object of this legislation, i.e. to make it easier for the authorities to trace these persons, get hold of them and send them back to their original countries of origin. We therefore welcome this legislation which is going to make that easier for the authorities, and we gratefully accept the fact that the hon. Opposition is not opposing this legislation, but is rather joining us in support of it. Its object is to clear up the abuses that have developed over many years, abuses created by people who come to South Africa without permits, and by people who come to South Africa and violate the conditions of the permits they obtained and remain here longer than they are allowed to do. In conjunction with this situation we also frequently find that exploitation of these persons takes place. I am personally aware of the fact that numerous people of this kind, who are in the country illegally, nominate certain agents in South Africa to make representations to the authorities on their behalf so that they may remain in South Africa permanently or can obtain temporary rights here. And thousands of rand are sometimes paid to these agents, or so-called agents, to try to get hold of these so-called permits. From conversations I have had with some of these people, it appears that false documents are sometimes cooked up and given to these aliens, documents whereby they are led to believe that they are now legally in South Africa. It is specifically to combat such abuses that we must pass this legislation today. We are aware of the fact that these people, who are in South Africa illegally, are very frequently employed by a so-called member of the family. He is dealt with very strictly by that member of the family. He is told: Man, if you do not want to work the hours I tell you to work and are not satisfied with the wage I am paying you, I am going to report you to the authorities. The result is that one gets large-scale exploitation of those persons who are in the country illegally. In spite of that, the conditions under which they are living in South Africa, are always still better than those of their countries of origin.

We have our immigration legislation. We set certain standards for those people we would like to bring to South Africa as immigrants. We expect them to have obtained certain educational standards. Inter alia, we expect them to have had at least ten years of formal schooling and to have achieved certain standards. We expect some of them to be professional people who can make a contribution to production in South Africa. We have enough labour in South Africa. We have enough so-called cheap labour in South Africa. It is not necessary for us to import this labour from overseas as well. We want immigrants that can make a contribution to the creation of job opportunities for our Black and Brown people in South Africa. That is why it is unnecessary for us to have to import more labour in the form of unqualified persons who find themselves in our country.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the fact that the general attitude amongst numerous people of this kind—and I have also come across this personally—is that once one is in South Africa one will, in fact, manage somehow or other. The idea is that if one initially comes as a visitor and makes oneself at home in South Africa, no one will ask one how long one has been here, where one works and what one is doing. Such an attitude apparently comes from certain agents abroad. I have already spoken to many of them and they will tell one that they were given the assurance that once they had come to South Africa as visitors and remained here a while, they would be accepted in South Africa as immigrants. As I understand the position, it is also the policy, and an agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration, that in highly exceptional cases the latter has a look at applications for permanent settlement in South Africa from persons who are here in South Africa on temporary permits. I have frequently found the Department of Immigration telling such a person that it would only consider his application for permanent settlement if he returned to his country of origin. I also welcome this, because it indicates that in this respect we are disciplined and do not want to create the impression that a person can come to South Africa, and once he is here have the right, in next to no time, to remain here permanently. We have our standards that we set. We have our requirements. We know what we want to achieve with our immigration programme. Immigrants must therefore adapt to those standards.

Persons who are here illegally and came here without authorization, or persons who have violated their rights of residence, must in time be found by the police. Then they are told to leave the country. It is a tremendous task. I am aware that the police cannot always lay their hands on these persons. We are also aware of the fact that these people change their address without giving the authorities the proper notification. Under these specific circumstances the police are finding it increasingly more difficult to catch up with these people and to deport them from the country. The result is that we now have this legislation before the House, in terms of which we expect the general public also to make their contribution, admittedly under a degree of coercion, i.e. under such pressure that if they do not make their contribution, they can be prosecuted, and I regard this as an important step forward. I regard this as a step in the direction of co-operation between the authorities and the general public to solve this problem which we in South Africa are faced with. As far as this is concerned, I therefore most certainly want to welcome this legislation.

I now want to refer to the remarks which the hon. member for Green Point made yesterday when, at the beginning of his speech, he said we must be careful that we are not hard-handed with guests, or words to that effect. But we are not dealing with guests in this instance. Here we are dealing with unwelcome guests. We are dealing here with two classes in particular. Firstly there are the so-called uninvited guests. If one has uninvited guests at one’s home, one very quickly shows them the door. One can perhaps be polite for a while and admit them, but one would very soon send them off. What difference is there now between one’s own domestic situation and the national situation? We must have the right to send these uninvited persons off, and we also want to do this with the co-operation of the general public. The second group we are dealing with here is the group whose presence here we permit to a certain extent. Those are people who have been invited for a short while, or who have been invited in terms of a certain understanding and under certain conditions, and who then do not want to leave. It reminds me of the story of the man who said to his wife: “Dear, let us go to bed; it looks as if the guests want to leave.” Here we have the same kind of situation. We must also be able to catch up with those people. Those are people who exceed the bounds of the hospitality we offer them by staying longer than they were initially permitted to stay. This legislation does not affect the so-called exempted individuals in terms of section 7bis. They are our guests; they remain here unrestricted and indefinitely in terms of the exemption they have obtained, and it is only when the exemption is withdrawn in respect of a specific person, or is specifically withdrawn in respect of a class of person, that the hospitality given to them is withdrawn. From the remarks the hon. member for Green Point made here yesterday it seemed as if he were a little unsure of the conditions under which this exempted group, the group which falls under section 7bis, would be able to remain here in South Africa. They are actually not at issue in the discussion of this Bill, and I do not think he was correct to have spoken about that subject, but since he has raised that point, I want to tell him that a large group of these so-called exempted individuals are people from the old Commonwealth countries who can freely come to South Africa. If one looks at the restrictions to which those same Commonwealth countries subject us, as South Africans, these days—one thinks of the case of Australia which does not even want to allow our Springbok team across their air space—one asks oneself if one should still as freely admit this class of exempted individuals to South Africa. One wonders whether this class of exempted individuals should not be treated like all other Europeans. Sir, I am just asking that question in passing. Why would a person be allowed in South Africa under exemption though he does not quite qualify as an immigrant? That is a question one would do well to ask in this connection, because such an exempted person, because he falls within a particular class or group, would perhaps not qualify as an immigrant because he does not comply with certain educational standards or because he has not had certain training, but would nevertheless be able to come to South Africa under exemption.

Sir, there is one aspect I want to deal with in more detail. It is an aspect that was broached by the hon. member for Green Point and also by the hon. member for Ermelo, and it involves the question of the restriction placed upon business transactions with aliens. The hon. member for Green Point had certain doubts yesterday about the relative clause, and at first glance, if one looks at the ordinary meaning of the words as contained in the Bill, I want to say that this legislation does appear to one to be drastic; it looks as if it restricts all transactions with aliens, even Aliens that are not here on our soil but who are abroad. The hon. member for Green Point also mentioned an example of such a person. At first glance, if one looks at this Bill, one gains the impression that that is the meaning of the Bill, and one is encouraged, in this view by the definition of “alien” as contained in the principal Act, i.e. all who are not South African citizens. In the principal Act an alien is defined as a person who is not a South African citizen, who does not have a permit in terms of section 4 or 5, or who has not been exempted in terms of section 7 or 7bis. Everyone is prohibited from having business dealings with such a person, i.e. any alien abroad who has not yet applied for such privileges. I wish to accept that it was in no way the intention of the Act to restrict or limit such transactions. I wish to accept that this is in no way the intention of this Bill. The intention of this Bill is to get rid of uninvited guests or those who abuse hospitality; that is the intention of this Bill. In the first place, therefore, it affects aliens who find themselves here in South Africa— aliens who work here, aliens who live here and aliens who conduct business here. The intention, then, is that this Bill will affect those classes of aliens.

I believe that any other interpretation would lead to an absurdity and that it would invalidate this measure. In the interpretation of an Act there is the general principle, which the hon. member for Green Point and other legal men will know about, the principle of the restrictive interpretation as contained in the legal maxim cum lex plus scripsit minus voluit, in other words, when the Act contains more than the Legislature intended, the intention applies. Well, the intention is also very clear here. The intention of the Legislature is always stronger than the language used, and the intention of the Legislature is merely to affect a certain class of aliens. You will know that there are two concepts in our law according to which legislation is interpreted restrictively. The one is the eiusdem generis rule which is not applicable here; the other has to do with the ratio or the intentio of the Legislature. Here we have a specific case where the Legislature has a specific intention, i.e. that only aliens in South Africa will be included and not aliens outside South Africa. Our principles of interpretation are based on the judgment in the case of Venter V. Rex which was given in the Transvaal in 1907. That is a very interesting case, if I may mention it to you. The case there was that the Transvaal Act provided the following—

That was the case of a Transvaler, a person who was domiciled in the Transvaal, who went to the Free State, committed theft there and then returned to the Transvaal and was prosecuted there because he had “entered the Province” i.e. returned to the Transvaal province after he had committed an offence elsewhere. In spite of the wording here “any person entering” the eventual decision on appeal was that it was not the ratio of the Legislature to restrict everyone, and certainly not persons domiciled in the Transvaal, but only to exclude offenders from beyond the Transvaal’s borders. And the same kind of ratio would be the restrictive factor in this particular case. But through you, Sir, I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is also another case which could be given profitable scrutiny and that is the case of De Kock v. Resident Magistrate of Caledon (13 SC). In that case an old Cape Act applied, to the effect that where one had more than two attorneys in a town a so-called law agent could not be appointed.

In this specific case there were three attorneys in Caledon and a law agent wanted himself appointed, but the three attorneys were all partners in the same firm. The intention of the Act was clear. The intention was that when one has two opposing attorneys, so that one has two groups of attorneys that could handle the cases of certain parties, one could not admit a law agent. The Judge had to watch this. The Judge saw the ratio but felt himself so tied to the ipsissima verba, the actual words of this specific Act, that he did not want to admit the law agent in spite of the fact that in this specific case ratio should, in actual fact, also have given a restrictive interpretation to the legislation. That is why I am being careful, Sir, and I express my caution to the hon. the Deputy Minister by saying that we should perhaps take another look at the wording of this legislation so that we do not fall into the same trap with respect to its eventual interpretation, as happened in the case of De Kock v. Resident Magistrate of Caledon.

The hon. member for Bellville has treated this House this afternoon to a very erudite speech, a long legal argument, on the question of the interpretation of legislation, and, I cannot presume to match the hon. gentleman when it comes to such an argument.

However, what I can say to the hon. member is that I believe that the judiciary will only look to the intention of the Legislature when the intention of the legislation is not clear. If the intention of the legislation is obscure, then the judiciary will look to the intention of the Legislature. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me on that point. I believe that this Bill is quite clear. This is what the hon. member for Ermelo has to say in regard to the argument of the hon. member for Bellville. He says that clause 1 is clear and unambiguous, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Ermelo that it is in fact clear and unambiguous. This is the point which was put to the hon. the Deputy Minister by my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, yesterday when he discussed this measure.

Something else that must be pointed out to the hon. member for Bellville is that he, quite correctly, says aliens come here under conditions which they promptly proceed to break. What he sought in this Bill is an example of co-operation between the authorities and the public. I think something which must be brought pertinently to the notice of the public and which I believe speakers on the other side have failed to do, is exactly what is being imposed upon the public by this measure. This is that we are creating new offences, offences of which the public of South Africa will be found guilty. The Legislature is now saying to every member of the public that they have to help the Government to solve its problem with these, as the hon. member put it, uninvited guests or guests who have outstayed their welcome.

But that is fair.

I am not saying it is unfair. The hon. member is very sensitive, I must say. I have not for a moment suggested that it is unfair. All that I am asking is that we must make it quite clear to the public what exactly we are passing here. That is that we are saying to every member of the public in South Africa that if they employ or continue to employ an alien who has outstayed his welcome, they are liable to a fine of R200 or six months in gaol. We are saying further to the public of South Africa, to every South African and everybody else who has permanent residence or is domiciled in the Republic, that if they enter into an agreement with any alien who does not have the necessary permission of the Government to enter into such an agreement with them, they will be liable to a fine of R200 or a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment. We are saying to every person who has a home that if he harbours an alien who has no right either to be in the Republic or to be in that particular area where he is living, he is liable to a fine of R200 or to imprisonment for six months.

Are you opposing this Bill?

No, I am not opposing this Bill, not at all and not for a moment. All I am saying is that I want it made clear to the people of South Africa exactly what we are passing. That is all I am saying. I do not believe that any member on that side, including the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Are you supporting the measure?

I am supporting the measure; I do not have anything at all against the measure. I want to know why they are so sensitive. Do they disagree with the interpretation that I place on it? Does anybody on that side disagree with my interpretation? Let us hear from them. Does anybody on that side of the House disagree with the interpretation that I have placed on the first provision of the Bill?

We always disagree with you.

Nobody disagrees; in other words, the interpretation which I have placed on it now is quite correct. [Interjections.] Of course it is correct; I knew it when I started. I do not know why they are so sensitive about it now. What are the hon. members worried about?

You must make sure that somebody is listening.

Obviously the hon. the Deputy Minister has been listening because he seems to take exception to what I have said. Why does he take exception? I cannot understand why he takes exception because I believe that I have put the position quite straight. I hope that this will be brought to the notice of the public and that they will know what the position is, so that there will not be some poor unfortunate individuals who will suddenly be arraigned before our courts because they happen to have committed some of these offences because they are completely unaware of what is taken place in this House.

The hon. member for Bellville went further. He dealt with the new subsection 5ter(1)(b). He said that it looked as if it limited all transactions with aliens. He went further and he repeated “with all aliens”. Then he went on to say “but it is not the intention …”. This is where I want to cross swords with him and say that at this stage it is impossible for us sitting in the Opposition to debate the intention of the Government with this measure. All that we can debate are the words which are written down here. We can only debate what is written in the Bill and I believe, with the hon. member for Ermelo, that what is written here is absolutely clear and unambiguous. I want to deal particularly with this new subsection (b) whereby no person shall—

I do not believe that I have to go into all four categories of aliens that we have in this country, namely those with permanent residence permits, those who have temporary residence permits, those who are distinguished persons and those who are citizens of countries which are exempt from obtaining such permits. The hon. member for Green Point made it quite clear that he believed that if this was tied to the personal involvement of the alien, not only involvement at the time of entering into the agreement, but if it was tied to the personal involvement of the alien and his actual physical conduct of the business which was carried out here in the Republic, we could accept this measure. I believe it even goes further than that. We have the situation where many businessmen from overseas come to this country on a fleeting visit for business purposes and to conduct negotiations with businessmen in this country. What is their position going to be?

They are here legally.

Well, this is fine. When a Japanese businessman comes, like the Japanese trade mission we have just had who negotiated this very large contract with our wattle industry in Natal, what is going to happen? In future they will have to obtain temporary residence permits for the period of that year.

Not always.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “not always”. I accept that. But when they arrive they will have to declare their interests at the point of entry. They will have to say that they want a temporary residence permit which will allow them to negotiate with South African businessmen on a particular subject. What is the position of South African businessmen? Every time they wish to negotiate with one of these foreign gentlemen, they will first have to say to him:“Before I can talk to you at all, I want some proof from you, either that you are a South African citizen or that you have a certificate of permanent residence or that you have a certificate of temporary residence which allows you to negotiate this business with me.”

You are talking absolute nonsense.

To that hon. member at the back who says I am talking nonsense, I want to say that he should first read the Bill. I would also suggest to him that he should stay in this House and that he should listen to the debates which take place. Then he would not make such an accusation.

I suggest that you read Lionel Murray’s speech.

That hon. member is speaking out of sheer ignorance; he does not know what we are talking about. I say that I believe that this is what is written down here. Until such time as somebody on that side can disabuse me of that belief, I believe that it is what is written here. I believe that it is the problem which the hon. member for Bellville had.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned a little earlier I was developing on the theme which was introduced by the hon. member for Green Point, who had put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in so far as the proposed new section 5ter(1)(b) was concerned, it should be limited to aliens who were in the Republic and who were in actual physical control of the business, who actually conducted the business or would conduct the business in respect of which an agreement was being negotiated. I had put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he had now reached the position that anybody from overseas who wished to come out to this country to negotiate any business deal, if we accepted the provision as it is before us now, would have to report at his point of entry what his interest was, that he intended to negotiate an agreement or a contract with certain South African businessmen and in what particular category. The temporary residence permit of that particular visitor would have to be so endorsed. The South African businessman concerned, before he can begin to negotiate with the person from overseas, would have to ask him to produce his credentials and demand from him sight of his temporary residence permit in which this condition would have to be prescribed. I believe that that is not really what is intended by this legislation.

That is intended.

The hon. the Deputy Minister tells me that that is what is intended. I am very sorry—I almost said horrified—to hear that, because I do not believe that is the right attitude we in this country should adopt. Instead of putting impediments in the way of businessmen who come from overseas to negotiate business with us, we should be putting out the red carpet and not asking them to get permits to come here to negotiate with particular individuals or to negotiate a particular alliance.

He must tell us what he is doing here.

Of course he must tell us what he is doing here, but what is going to be the position? Do you think that a Japanese businessman is going to come here and cool his heels for three days at Jan Smuts airport while he waits for such a permit to come from the department? He is a big businessman and time means money to him. He is not going to cool his heels for three days at Jan Smuts.

He gets it at the Airport there and then.

And if he does not? Does he know that he has to get this? I think this is a wrong attitude the Government is now adopting. I know that we are supporting the measure in principle. We support the measure, but not this sort of provision. This is not what we believe the position was from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister and I want to quote it. I want to quote from his speech and say that this clause is far beyond what he led us to believe when he introduced the measure. He said—

I did not believe that it was the intention to say that these people must get a permit in which it will be laid down with whom they may negotiate, in which part of the country they may negotiate …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, we were talking of a conditional permit, but we did not believe it would be this sort of condition. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has control over the entry of aliens into this country, whether he is going to put such notices up at all our points of entry. Is he going to tell people that they must first get this sort of permit before they can enter our country and can negotiate with our industrialists and businessmen in this country? I believe that this Government is doing South Africa a great disservice. Only this afternoon we had the hon. the Minister of Finance introducing his Budget in which he is stimulating trade with overseas countries and here is this hon. Minister hamstringing his efforts at the first opportunity. He is not only making it most difficult for our local people to negotiate and trade with overseas persons, but he is making it even more difficult for those persons from overseas to come to this country to trade with us. I repeat that we should be rolling out the red carpet for them, we should be fêting them and treating them well instead of asking them to get permits, which is what this hon. Minister tells us we must do. I believe we are going to have to reconsider our attitude towards this particular measure. I think I have made my point on that particular clause and I intend leaving that clause to move on to another provision in the Bill, namely clause 4.

A thought has occurred to me: The hon. the Deputy Minister, in a recent exchange with me, indicated that a temporary residence permit would be issued automatically on arrival at, for instance, Jan Smuts airport. I think that is what he intimated. If this is going to be done automatically, why do we want legislation? No, Sir, I do not know what the trouble is with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I want to deal briefly with the provisions of clause 4. At the beginning of this session we heard with a great fanfare that the movement of Indians within the Republic was going to be made easier, that restrictions on the movement of Indians, were to be removed, or alleviated anyway. Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister passed this off too in his introduction. He did not really tell us what he was going to do. The provision is there that “the Minister may exempt any category of persons from the provisions of section 13(1)(a).” That is fine, but who or what does he mean by “any category of persons”? He did not tell us. He spoke of football teams. Is he now going to exempt all members of a particular football team or perhaps the supporters of that team? What does he mean by “category of persons”? Does he mean he is only going to exempt the Muslims, or perhaps the Hindus? He can take his pick; whatever he wants. Is he going to exempt only businessmen and industrialists, or farmers, or perhaps only the males and not the females? This provision goes even further than that. I want to say that I believe there are sections of this provision which are absolutely impossible of execution because we suddenly find the double negative in this clause. Having exempted a class of person, the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to exempt one individual from that class of persons from the exemption he has already granted to that class of persons. How does he think he is going to implement this provision? How does he think he is ever going to carry it out? As I say, I believe it is impossible of execution.

I may be obtuse on occasions—I must admit that—but there is something I really do not understand. I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech; I have a copy of his Hansard which I have read through again to try to find out about a little amendment in the Bill in clause 5. The proposed new paragraph (d) of section 43 of the Act serves to delete “section 52” and to substitute it by “section 51”. I have been wondering what this is all about and why we have the deletion of section 52 and its substitution by section 51. I really can see no reason for this.

It is simply the rectification of a printing error.

Ah! Now we get to the bottom of the dark secret! Why was this kept such a secret? Why did the hon. the Deputy Minister not tell us this when he introduced the measure?

[Inaudible.]

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister just repeat that for the record? It is what? Is it putting right a printing error? Now I can understand what this is all about. People could have gone to gaol because of a printing error; people could have been thrown out of the Republic because of a printing error. But I am very glad to find that it has been put right. I am very glad to discover it in this particular way, that is by way of an interjection across the floor of the House.

I have raised various issues and I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister has got to either introduce an amendment at the Committee Stage or else accept an amendment from this side of the House. This will clarify once and for all exactly what is, meant by the proposed section 5ter(1)(b). I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister was right when he indicated to me a moment ago what in fact the intention was. The hon. the Deputy Minister must make this quite clear when he replies to the Second Reading debate. We can only at this stage accept what is written here.

The hon. member for Bellville did raise; the question of the intention of the legislature. Now there seems to be a doubt as to what exactly was the intention of the legislature. What the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us now was not what he told us when he introduced this measure. I believe that we must have clarification on this matter. We are not against the Bill in principle but we would like to hear his explanation on this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District got up with much gesticulation and said that the principles, as contained in the Bill, are acceptable to him. Immediately thereafter, after he had said that he accepted the principles, he challenged this side of the House to differ with him, ironical as that may seem. If one agrees with someone how on earth can one challenge him to differ with one. Anyone who does a thing like that is bereft of his senses.

In the second place, the hon. member went off the deep end about a printing error, i.e. the figure 52 which should have been 51. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself to have said that a responsible Government could throw people out of the country on the basis of a printing error in an Act.

The hon. member also referred to the proposed section 5ter(1)(b) which is now being inserted in Act No. 1 of 1937. He did so on account of a reference to that same section by the hon. member for Green Point and also in following up on what was said by an hon. member on this side of the House, i.e. the hon. member for Ermelo, when referring to the same section. He said he had reservations about the wording of this particular proposed section as printed. This section refers unambiguously to the person who does not have a permit.

It is beyond me to understand how he can make such a fuss about a section which is absolutely clear.

I now want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Ermelo. He referred to certain deficiencies which may arise if careful note is taken of the proposed section 5ter(1)(b). Doubt could exist and the impression could be created that this could include actions beyond the intentions of the legislator, particularly if such actions were directly or indirectly linked with companies. A person from this country could for example negotiate with a person from another country to enter into a contract without it being the intention of that alien to commit an offence in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. In so far as this may create any doubt, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Ermelo and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he has the opportunity to reply to this debate, perhaps to dwell on this clause, to see whether it is necessary to make an adjustment in the wording thereof so as to cover also those possibilities which have been referred to by the hon. member for Ermelo in particular.

Mr. Speaker, if the Bill is considered as a whole, one can only come to one irrefutable conclusion, i.e. that it is most certainly of the greatest importance for every people and every country, when it intends establishing sound, proper and positive government, and when it aims to establish a well-ordered society for the citizens of the country, to have immigration laws, and to have laws dealing with the control of aliens which, as far as is practicable, must border on the concept of perfection. It is most definitely not easy to make an Act border on the concept of perfection because, in the nature of things, experience teaches us that the transgressor is always more clever than the legislator. For this reason it is essential for adjustments and amendments to be effected from time to time in order to close such loopholes and adapt the existing legislation to the changed requirements of the times. That is really what this particular Bill is aiming at. This Bill aims at adapting the two Acts affected here, to changed circumstances and to close loopholes which have arisen. For that reason this Bill stresses five particular aspects.

In the first place, inasmuch as the Bill introduces amendments to the Aliens Act, No. 1 of 1937, a new offence is being created in that the wilful employer, the wilful co-business contractor or the wilful host, now commits a crime, as is defined here. This particular Act, No. 1 of 1937, has already covered the whole aspect of the alien as such fully and quite thoroughly by defining in clear unabiguous terms in sections 4 and 5, the offence an alien commits if he is not in possession of a temporary or a permanent residence permit, or if he exceeds the limits and the conditions of such a permit. But now we come to the position of the wilful employer or host or co-business contractor. This is now the new situation, the new offence, which is being defined here. This is an extremely important and essential aspect which is being stressed here. This is very important because it goes much further than merely the superficial creation of an offence. Sir, what is the position in respect of this wilful employer? He merely derives financial gain from this position of the alien. The alien himself is guilty of an offence by being here without the necessary permit and by being here as a prohibited person. But this wilful employer derives financial gain from the presence of that alien. He conceals his presence. He has created for himself a source of cheap labour and he makes use of this source. He utilizes it for his own benefit and to the prejudice of others. Often he has assisted in smuggling in this kind of person, or he is associated with a gang of smugglers who conduct a business in bringing into this country persons who are not entitled or authorized to be here. This aspect goes very far, in so far as it involves enormous disadvantages for a country which has to contend with such problems. There are probably hundreds or thousands of aliens inside the borders of this country, aliens who do not comply with the requirements of the Act, and these are people whom we must carry here; these are people who render no positive contribution to the development of this country. These are people who are not at any particular level of development. These are people who are usually either totally or partly unskilled and unqualified. They practice no trade or profession. Sir, it is these people who feed on this country like parasites, and to this is added the employer who in his turn feeds like a parasite on the employee because the employee has his head in the noose, with the result that he, the employer, is able to exploit the position this person is in. Sir, the position of this particular employee who is an alien and who is here illegally, places any government in a tremendously embarrassing position. Subsequently he and a woman are living together and they have children. This thing sprouts wings; this thing takes roots; the position becomes progressively more difficult, and that is why it is of the utmost importance that stress be laid on this particular clause.

Sir, apart from this the Bill goes further by laying down certain provisions in regard to the onus of proof, in that it makes use of presumptions regarding an offence and transfers the onus of proof to the accused, so that he has to prove his innocence. Sir, this practice of reversing the onus of proof may not be a very general one, except where sufficient justification for it exists. If one looks at this Bill and its wording, one sees that the Bill is quite clear in itself, because the Bill states that the alien must be found in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he has broken the law. All the accused has to do now, is to say exactly what this illegal alien is doing on his premises under circumstances suspected to be in contravention of the provisions of this Act. We cannot stress enough that we are dealing here with a person, an employer, who is collaborating with this alien; we are dealing here with a wilful employer who acts as the one who protects, cares for and hides this alien. This is a situation which must be eradicated entirely, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that this Bill be placed on the Statute Book in the most effective form, and that is why this Bill goes further in the proposed new sections 5ter (7) (a), (b) and (c), where it is made possible and easy to find a person charged with one offence, guilty of the alternative offence where it is obvious that he has committed one of the two offences concerned.

In the second place, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this Bill a further amendment is being effected to the Aliens Act of 1937 by providing for the Minister to issue a temporary residence permit to an alien, even in cases where a stranger has not applied for it and even in those cases where the exemption of the alien concerned from the requirement of being in possession of such a temporary permit, is withdrawn. Sir, it is not necessary to elaborate on this. This is an inevitable result which must necessarily be effected administratively and legally in order to give effect—and to give effect unambiguously—to the intentions and provisions of section 5bis of the Aliens Act in light of the explanation given by the hon.the Deputy Minister when introducing this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in the third place this Bill goes further by laying down more severe penalty provisions. I should like to compliment the hon. the Deputy Minister on the fact that provision is now being made in this Bill for a person found guilty of a second or subsequent offence to be sentenced to both imprisonment and a fine. In the case of the first offence either one or the other sentence may be imposed. Sir, if I may express any criticism in this respect, I want to say that it strikes one that 36 years have elapsed since 1937, when provision was originally made for a fine of R200 (at that time £100) or, alternatively, six months’ imprisonment. Since then we have had inflation. Inflation cannot ofcourse affect the six months, but it can affect the R200. I feel that if all circumstances are taken into consideration and if the seriousness of the offences which this particular Bill attempts to cover is taken into account, the time has probably arrived now to consider increasing both the fine and the imprisonment. In problems of this kind which penetrate to the heart of a country and its continued existence, I believe that the most severe penalties should be laid down for offences in terms of the Act.

Sir, in the fourth place, in clause 3 of the Bill, by means of the insertion of a new sectionl9A, Asiatics are allowed free movement or greater freedom of movement between the provinces. There is no need to elaborate on this; this goes without saying, and everyone will welcome this amendment. Probably one is being petty to expect that even the Asiatic, in every instance of a quick visit to a friend or relation, should first obtain a permit, and it is an impossible task if the department is to be saddled with the administrative work which is involved in the issuing of thousands and thousands of permits, let alone the time which is lost on interviews and the money and precious time wasted in the issuing of permits of this nature …

When did you realize that?

Because it is in accordance with the policy of this Government and with the decision of this Government as announced last year, and also because it is welcomed by the South African Indian Council, this is most certainly another forward step.

In the fifth place, Mr. Speaker, a further adjustment is made in terms of this Bill with regard to the Admission of persons to the Republic Regulation Act, and a new Section is substituted for section 43 of Act 59 of 1972, a new section in terms of which the offences as defined in Schedule 1 to that particular Act are extended. This is necessary because new offences arise from time to time; because offences which previously were not regarded in such a serious light are now, with the development and modernization which has taken place, regarded in a more serious light, and for that reason I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the hon. the Minister for having seen fit to include this serious offence of trading in or being in possession of habit-forming drugs, in this particular Schedule so that a prohibited person, in accordance with section 13 (1) (f) of Act 59 of 1972, may be prohibited from entering or may be expelled from the country.

Mr. Speaker, if I may summarise this measure, then I believe that we are dealing here with a Bill which may be a positive aid, a Bill which is established to exercise the most effective control over aliens within the borders of this country; a Bill which is established in order to prevent aliens, unqualified and in uncontrolled numbers, from settling here in South Africa; a Bill which also aims at preventing the good, sound immigration policy of the Government from being prejudiced. If that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, what purpose would the Immigration Selection Board have? What good purpose would it have if conditions were laid down for the admission of aliens over the borders of this country if aliens could settle here without any permission and get away with it easily and easily remain unpunished? Sir, it is of the utmost importance that the character, background and integrity of these people be investigated; that it be ascertained whether they are capable of making an economic-industrial labour contribution to the progress of this country; to ascertain whether they have a religious, adaptable disposition; to ascertain whether they take part in communistic political activities. Mr. Speaker, this amendment Bill is an essential positive contribution to prevent the Republic supplementing its numbers with people who do not have the potential to render a useful and positive contribution to the progress of this country and to the development of the phenomenal potential which lies hidden in this country.

In the last place, this Bill is an essential positive contribution to help the Republic so that the person who settles in South Africa, whether temporarily or permanently, can also take his place with honour among the other citizens of his host country with regard to his character, his integrity, his disposition and his outlook on life. With these words I have pleasure in recommending whole-heartedly this Bill as a whole.

Firstly I want to thank the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, very much for the very clear explanation of the Bill. He did not ask me as many questions as some of the other hon. members did, but he did study the Bill and he gave a very clear explanation of it.

I firstly want to refer to the hon. member for Green Point and the questions he put to me the other day. He referred to clause 1 and asked whether the word “alien” could not be interpreted—if I have understood him correctly—as being a person who is outside the Republic, thereby implying that people outside the Republic could not do the things laid down in the Bill. That point was mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo in a very interesting way and it was very clearly stated by the hon. member for Bellville whom I want to thank for the court cases he looked up and submitted to me. I am of the opinion that it cannot be interpreted in any way but that that person is an alien in South Africa. If one looks at the scope of the legislation, and if one realizes that it is territorial in nature—its whole nature and scope is territorial—and if one realizes that legislation can, in any event, only be applied to people coming under its purview …

Oh no!

Wait a moment. And if we look further, at subsection (2), to which the hon. member for Green Point referred—no, it is 5ter(1)(b) where we state: “No person shall enter into any agreement with any such alien”— what alien is being referred to? It refers to an alien under (a), and an alien under (a) is an alien who is not or is not deemed to be in possession of a permit. In other words, it is an alien who should have applied for a permit.

That is wrong.

We are now speaking about interpretation. It can only be an alien who is within the borders of South Africa. I am quite satisfied that according to the interpretation of the courts this Bill, as it stands, will convey exactly what we want from it. But because the hon. members on this side of the House have come along with such interesting references and because I would not like any mistakes in connection with this matter, I have decided to state matters as clearly as possible, and in the Committee Stage I shall introduce a small amendment which will result in the section only being applicable in respect of aliens in the Republic. This is just to make sure that the hon. member does not run to the courts with this matter. [Interjections.] I want to reiterate that in no one way do I concede that hon. members are right. I am just saying that we do not want any uncertainty; therefore I shall do this.

The hon. member also asked what the position is in connection with the categories in clause 4. He asked what categories of prohibited persons these are. Sir, the meaning of the word “categories” is very clear. I can just mention that it could possibly be Indians. It could be Chinese. There are quite a few categories in South Africa. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-District asked whether the categories could be even more restricted. That is also possible. It can also be Indians or Asiatics of a certain area that are being exempted. It could also be a certain school. It could be categories of persons.

What is the intention?

The intention is to exempt the persons from the obligation of having to have a permit. One can exempt them from the obligation; then they could move around without a permit. But in terms of this legislation one also has the right to withdraw certain permits.

But if he is without a permit, what is one then withdrawing?

The hon. member asks what one is withdrawing if he is without a permit. The hon. member ought to know, and if he had read this Bill he would have known, and not asked such questions, that that class of persons are a prohibited class of persons In other words, they are automatically prohibited from moving from one province to the other. It has nothing to do with the permit. The hon. member must just not display his ignorance here. [Interjections.] The hon. member may ask as many reasonable questions as he wants to.

The hon. member for Green Point also referred to sections 7bis(3) and (13)(1)(a) of the Act and said that the provisions were not stylishly drawn up. I am not prepared to speak about other legal provisions in this debate. I am only prepared to speak about this Bill. I may or may not agree with him about the stylishness of certain other sections in the Act, but that has nothing to do with these clauses, therefore I cannot discuss this.

The hon. member for Green Point also asked me to say what people are at present exempted under 7bis. These are at present the people from the Commonwealth countries: England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Rhodesia, the old Commonwealth countries. Those are the people who have been exempted under 7bis. I do not know why the hon. member asked this. I did not find it relevant, but I am nevertheless explaining it. I think that answers all the hon. members’ questions. If there is still something that is bothering him in connection with the Bill I would be glad to answer him.

The hon. member for Berea asked me eventually to give complete exemption to prohibited persons in Natal. It is not the Government’s policy to do this.

Why not?

Because it is not the policy of this Government to allow Asiatics to move from Natal to the Transvaal and be able to stay there. They can drive around as much as they want to. That hon. member would be the first to come to me to complain if they could live in the Transvaal on a large scale. That is the reason. I hope that satisfies the hon. member. The hon. member also referred to clause 6. I want to tell the hon. member that here he has brought something to my attention which I have not previously given attention to. I think the hon. member has brought up a very interesting point and in the Committee Stage I should like to reply clearly and fully to the point he made. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District launched such an attack on me that I cannot believe he really supports the Bill. He waved his arms and argued, challenged me and carried on, but I think that in the course of my answer I have replied to everything he raised. I think he now knows everything he wanted to know. I should like to invite the hon. member, if there is still something else, to ask me now across the floor. I think, however, that I replied to everything when I replied to the hon. member for Green Point’s argument. I think the hon. member for Malmesbury has, in any case, replied to everything.

I am glad the hon. Opposition is not opposing this Bill. I am glad they are supporting it. However, I want to express the hope that they will not support all the Bills they do support in the way in which they have supported this one. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us about the “printing error” that got into the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, by your leave I should like to speak about the printing error. The printing error crept in quite simply because the printer printed “52” instead of “51”. The United Party did not spot that, and neither did we. However, we have spotted it now and we have Corrected it. I am telling the hon. member it was merely a printing error. That is all. [Interjections.]

Order!

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As development occurs in almost every sphere today and brings about resultant adjustment of concepts, we find that in the sphere of education as well, development entails that existing arrangements have to be adjusted. In the Act in question—the 1963 Act relating to Coloured persons’ education—vocational education is formulated as consisting of commercial vocational education, domestic science vocational education and technical vocational education. The concept of “vocational education”, however, covers a far wider field, and in order to effect expansion in this field from time to time the definition of “vocational education” is being adjusted by means of this statutory amendment so as to adjust to the present as well as to future requirements. The Minister is now being empowered, according to the requirements and constantly expanding technical sphere, to declare by notice in the Gazette which fields of study shall be vocational education for the purposes of Act 47 of 1963.

The importance of vocational training for Coloured persons has been realized for a long time. The Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, to whom education for Coloured persons was entrusted by delegation, today controls several institutions at which vocational training is being offered. At present there are technical colleges in Johannesburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Kimberley, and there is also the Peninsula Technical College for Advanced Technical Training at Bellville. Recently various bodies have approached the Administration of Coloured Affairs for registration as private vocational schools for Coloureds. At this stage the registration of private vocational schools for Whites is regulated in terms of Act 41 of 1967. The Coloured Persons Education Act, on the other hand, makes no provision for the registration of such schools. In particular, the registration of private vocational schools at a department of education involves the maintenance of standards of education and the protection of the interests of the students. Clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill under discussion will regulate this position.

Private Schools: Section 6 of the Act (Act No. 47 of 1963) is consequently being adjusted to emphasize specifically that if education other than the education offered at State schools, State-aided schools, industrial and reform schools and registered correspondence colleges, is provided for reward to Coloured persons, the educational institution in question shall be registered with the Administration of Coloured Affairs. Further protection of a student and of control over the offered academic standards is being effected by causing private schools to be inspected. Ultimately, if circumstances should necessitate this, the Minister will have the power to cancel the registration of a private vocational school.

Training Colleges: As was said by way of introduction, adjustments have to be effected in the sphere of education as a result of practical considerations. Aspirant Coloured teachers have been attending training colleges and training schools since education was taken over from the various provincial departments of education. The latter educational institutions provide training only to those who have successfully passed the examination for the eighth standard. Training colleges for Coloured persons, on the other hand, offer teachers’ training courses for those who have passed the examination for the eighth and tenth standard, as well as for those who wrote the examination for the latter standard but failed to obtain a pass mark. In terms of the definition of training colleges in the Act in question, however, only persons who have passed the examination for the tenth standard are admitted as students. In order to give validity in law to the enrolment of students with lower academic qualifications, the existing definition of training colleges is being adjusted to include these candidates as well. The certificate or diploma which is awarded after completion of a teachers’ training course, is of course related to the academic qualification upon admission to the college, and comprise, inter alia, the following: The Lower Primary Teachers’ Certificate, the Intermediate Primary Teachers Certificate, the Lower Primary Teachers’ Diploma and the Higher Primary Teachers’ Diploma.

Financial assistance for education and training: Like my predecessors I am doing my best to achieve an accelerated training program in the field of post-school training for Coloureds. Over the years financial assistance has been given to Coloured students to enable them to study further. I am thoroughly cognisant of the growing needs for service among their own community. In the immediate future professionally qualified Coloured persons are required in numerous spheres in the service of their own people, not only in their own state machine and educational institutions, but also in the private sector.

For several years bursaries have been awarded, on an extra-statutory basis with the approval of the Treasury, to students attending the University of the Western Cape. At present the Coloured Person Education Act makes no provision for such assistance. The envisaged amendment of section 24 will now make provision for that, and more. Since certain academic fields of study are not yet being offered at the University of the Western Cape, and Coloured students are attending other White institutions to further their studies, the amended section 24 will entail their also being able to acquire bursaries. But the implications extend even further in that Coloured students—we have in mind postgraduate students in particular—will be able to ask for assistance to continue their studies overseas.

As is clearly apparent from my elucidation of the factors considered in amending the Education Act in question, these new measures will all contribute to the continued expansion of Coloured education. We are dealing here with positive measures through which it will be possible to stimulate the development potential of the Coloured persons further.

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House can find any fault with the sentiments expressed by the hon. the Minister in the latter part of his speech, namely achieving the continued expansion of Coloured education. Consequently we on this side of the House are prepared to accept the changes the hon. the Minister wishes to make in respect of the definition of vocational education as such. The hon. the Minister is certainly correct when he says that vocational education as a subject is constantly expanding, and that constant new additions to the old definition consequently have to be made. If the Minister will therefore decide himself what the definition of “vocational education” is, as it is adjusted in future, one can definitely not find fault with that either. In the second place one cannot find any fault either with the statement made by the hon. the Minister in this speech to the effect that they want to render assistance to those student teachers among the Coloureds who previously received what was virtually extra-statutory support as far as their bursaries were concerned and who even received, one could almost say, extra-statutory training because the Act makes provision only for those who have matriculation. It is, after all, general knowledge that there are many Coloured student teachers who are receiving their training after passing only the eighth standard, but who nevertheless go on to render an important service in the interest of the Coloured community. In this respect therefore we cannot object to the hon. the Minister’s speech and the introduction of the Bill. But what we on this side of the House are concerned about most is the clause of the Bill to which the Minister gave the least attention, namely clause 2. I am afraid that unless the hon. gentleman is able to give us certain assurances in regard to clause 2, we will not be able to accept the Second Reading. The fact of the matter is that we should like to accept the Second Reading. We realize that the registration of private schools is in the first place absolutely essential. What causes us concern in this clause is that we think that the hon. the Minister is drawing that net too tight. I want to explain this statement to the hon. the Minister. In clause 2 it is provided that no person may provide education at a Coloured school unless that school has been registered. He may not provide such education for reward. I now want to point out to the Minister that Coloured education is today probably the most important factor in providing those people with the necessary education so that they may be a greater asset to society. In the first place there are hundreds of thousands of them attending school today. In the second place there is a tremendous shortage of classroom accommodation for these people. In the third place there is a tremendous shortage of teachers. In the fourth place it is the desire of that hon. Minister and this side of the House, too, that compulsory education in respect of Coloureds be introduced as rapidly as possible. The hope has already been expressed by the member of the Coloured Persons Representative Council charged with education that the introduction of compulsory education could possibly commence at the beginning of 1974. I am merely sketching this background to prove that there is a shortage of teaching staff and a shortage of classroom accommodation, to such an extent that Coloured teachers have to work double shifts. It is very clear to me, in view of the fact that the pass rate among Coloured persons is tremendously low and cannot be compared with that of the Whites at all, that those people will constantly have to receive extramural training. This position we also have among White children today where a young boy or a girl does not do well in a subject like mathematics for example, and that child is then sent to a teacher or other person so that that child may attend special classes and improve his or her achievements in that subject. Now, my question is this: If clause 2, the proposed new section 6, is accepted as it stands here, are we not then excluding the possibility of the teacher giving special classes to those pupils who do in fact need them? One cannot expect such a teacher to do this without any form of remuneration. In terms of the original 1963 Act one could in fact begin such a private school on condition that that school did not have more than 14 pupils. If it had more than 14 pupils, that school had to be registered, but if it had less than 14, it was not necessary to do so. That provision is being deleted entirely now. In other words, suppose a teacher gives extramural classes to only one child, am I not entitled to ask the hon. the Minister whether, even under the provision of this Bill, such a person will have to register such a school? He may perhaps say: “Yes, but it is a teacher,” but I want to ask him what the position would be in terms of clause 2 if the person who gives lessons is not a teacher but does have a B. Com. degree and is able to teach commercial subjects such as bookkeeping. As I, and all the hon. members on this side read it, it means that as a result of the lessons which he is giving, he will have to register his class as a private school. If he does not do so, he is breaking the law. Is the hon. the Minister able, in terms of subsection (3) of the proposed new section 6, to take action against such a person?

You are knocking down your own skittles.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is probably entitled to his views, but he can come and state them here in the House. All that we want to know from the hon. the Minister is this: If our interpretation of clause 2 is correct, would the hon. the Minister be prepared to move an amendment during the Committee Stage to exempt that type of tuition from any action against it, and to prevent such teachers having to have themselves registered as a private school? Again I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister—we have special circumstances under which we are today providing the Coloureds with education—the need for us to understand their position. There are thousands of Coloureds who are still not attending school. Soon the policy is going to be one of compulsory education. Does the hon. gentleman have the teachers with whom to achieve this? Does he have the classroom accommodation with which to achieve this? Is he certain that that education is going to be effective enough? If we are certain, particularly in view of the tremendously low pass rate at present, then I say that it is absolutely essential that the door should be kept open, and that the hon. the Minister should not draw the net too tight. We must afford the Coloured child the opportunity of improving himself. That is all we on this side of the House are advocating. We agree with the hon. the Minister that a private school as such should in fact be registered. This is the case with White schools as well. We have no quarrel with that. But it is not completely clear in terms of clause 2 whether all parties who fall into that category will have to have themselves registered as private schools. Now the hon. member for Stellenbosch is saying that surely that is not a private school. If that hon. member were to read the proposed section 6 properly, he would see what the position is. This section provides, inter alia—

No person shall … provide for reward education to Coloured persons—(a) unless such person has been registered with the Department … as a private school for Coloured persons …

Such a person could be the hon. member for Stellenbosch, or it could be a Coloured person with the necessary training. If he wants to provide education of that nature, he will have to have himself registered. One person could teach or give lessons to five or 50 people, if it were possible for him to do so in his spare time. We on this side of the House are prepared to give those people the opportunity to provide and receive that form of education. But I want to make it clear once again that if the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance that that is not the intention, and that he does not want to go so far but will protect this type of education which I have sketched, so that it may continue, we will support him in the Second Reading. But if he cannot give us that assurance, I am afraid that we will not be able to vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly the hon. member for Newton Park has during the past week spoken on agricultural matters. This evening, on the other hand, he ventured into the sphere of education, particularly. Coloured education.

Oh please, you have only been a member of the House of Assembly for a year.

I might be able to give him a piece of good advice. I do not know precisely whether I should recommend that he confine himself to agriculture, but in any case he certainly knows very little about education. He began well by saying that they support this Bill. During the past week the hon. member has said that on a number of occasions. So I think he will agree with me that this is a very good Government, with very good legislation. Consequently we shall indicate to the hon. member during the course of the evening what this legislation really means. We shall also deal with his problems, and do so in a simple manner so that he will be able to understand it.

The amending Bill which is at present before the House, is a further expansion of the Coloured Persons Education Act of 1963.

That we know.

I wonder what else you know. I think very little. This must be regarded as a step forward in providing the Coloured child, and in particular the Coloured youth, with all those facilities and opportunities which would enable them to make only the best use of education. This amending Bill must also serve to underline that this side of the House is in earnest as far as the Coloured population is concerned. Our policy of parallel development comprises … [Interjection.] I know the United Party does not understand it. They cannot understand such fine things. I do not think they understand their own policy either. This policy of parallel development of this side of the House entails that we should not begrudge the Coloureds anything, and also that we wish to give them everything which the White child in this country enjoys. We are in earnest about this, and we are being quite sincere in this regard. We shall also, in future, regard this matter as being a very serious one. The amendment of section 1 of Act 47 of 1963, in respect of vocational education, opens up a new field. There is no restriction now. The Minister is now being given the right to supply the needs, as the demand may arise. I know that in 1963 there was the fear in the Opposition ranks that if Coloured education were to be transferred from the provinces to the Department of Coloured Affairs, the standard of education for Coloureds would be lowered. Tonight I am convinced—and if the Opposition wants to be honest, they will have to agree with me —that precisely the opposite has proved to be true during the past 10 years. This amendment which is before the House tonight, indicates to us that we want to make all those fields of development available to the Coloured child which are available to the children of other population groups in this country. It is true that during the past decade there has been a tremendous amount of study and research in the sphere of education, and that our children are reaping the benefit of this today. We also want Coloured children to reap, and the Coloured population to enjoy, these benefits. The opportunities are there, and I wish to express the hope that the encouragement for these children will also be there. This encouragement cannot come from us; it must come from the parent, and particularly from the teacher.

A new section which makes provision for private schools is now being substituted for section 6 of Act 47 of 1963. Here, too, the Coloured child will now enjoy the same privilege as the White child for example. Because applications were made in this connection, it was found that such a need existed. This new section is now making provision for the registration of private schools that comply with the prescribed requirements and conditions. In addition, it will be possible to hold an inspection at any time, and the Minister will have the right to cancel the registration of a private school if it should appear that the conditions are not being complied with. Now, the hon. member for Newton Park has an objection, which is that if a teacher instructs a child in certain subjects, it will be regarded as a school and will have to be registered as such. I am convinced, Sir, that those of us sitting here who are parents frequently meet that need in our own children. If a child should perhaps not be doing well in a certain subject at school, and the teacher, in the nature of things, does not have the time to devote the necessary individual attention to that child, we arrange for our children to attend extramural classes in that particular subject, and surely that is not a school. I think perhaps the hon. member and the Opposition should first acquaint themselves with the definition of a school. If one reads this clause it is very clear that what is being referred to here is the registration of a private school, and one teacher giving extra lessons to one child in a few subjects, surely cannot be regarded as a school.

It is a good thing that this amending Bill makes provision for registration and that certain requirements and conditions have to be complied with, and also that inspection will be made, for I should like to put it like this: These private schools should under no circumstances become a stumbling block; they should be there to contribute a positive contribution to upliftment and to education. The emphasis should fall on education, and on education only. I am convinced that the Minister will not hesitate to make use of his powers if the contrary should appear to be true. I am saying this because when it comes to education one always has elements which want to utilize education and the school for purposes other than those for which they were really intended. I do not like the name prestige schools, but if these schools are going to serve the Coloured population in this way and if they are going to be geared to education, then we will welcome them. These private schools will also have to set as their goal turning out products which will be able to hold their own in the academic field, and who in their turn will be able to make a very important contribution in respect of their people.

I also think that we should take cognizance of the fact tonight that the establishment and the registration of private schools also has a financial side to it. The financial requirements will of course have to be met. I want to express the hope tonight that these funds will come from well-meaning persons and bodies, for I believe that having a financial grip can be extremely dangerous. But I think, too, that we are with this amending Bill this evening affording the Coloured population an opportunity of coming forward and making the financial contributions in respect of their people.

Section 24 of Act 47 of 1963 is also being substituted, and the new section makes provision for rendering financial assistance for education and training. Here I want to let the emphasis fall, as the amendment also indicates, on the fact that assistance will also be rendered to a student of a university college or a university. Frequent mention is made of a ceiling above our Coloureds, a ceiling which they come up against. With that is meant that there are no real opportunities for these people. I am not much interested in this statement, for I am convinced that no people may speak of a platform if their academic field still lies fallow. Now, I do not want to allege with this, that this is the case with the Coloureds, but I do want to put it like this: The level of development of a people is measured by its academic achievements, for surely these are basic to all achievements, progress and development. I believe that in respect of the Coloured population a tremendous amount still has to be done in this field, the academic field. Therefore we welcome the fact that this clause makes provision for financial assistance to students. It is true that one cannot agitate for academic qualifications. If you do not have them, there is no one you can hold responsible for that. This is something which is only achieved— we are all aware of this—by hard, strenuous and sustained labour.

However, one is aware of the fact that it costs a considerable amount today to acquire that academic tuition and achievement. For that reason we are grateful that provision is being made in this Bill for those young people of the Coloured population. I am convinced, and this I believe with all my heart, that among our Coloured people, as among all other peoples in this world, there are young men and women who are endowed with very good minds. I want to reiterate that they should be encouraged to make the correct use of what has been placed at their disposal. The facilities are all there. I believe that if the correct use is made of these, and if this is done in future, it will not be possible for anyone to be frustrated. The hon. the Minister also said that these bursaries would make provision for post-graduate study. I hope and believe tonight that there will be many young men and women from among the ranks of our Coloured persons who will come forward and avail themselves of these opportunities, who will not allow themselves to be influenced, who will not allow themselves to be led astray, but who will allow themselves to be geared to acquiring these academic qualifications, and who will also go on to do post-graduate study. For that reason we on this side of the House wish to give this amendment Bill our wholehearted support. I believe, as I have already said, that this is a step forward. I believe that it will lead on to even greater things in Coloured education. It simply indicates so clearly again tonight—I recently read the debate conducted in this House in 1963 in respect of Coloured education— that the Opposition was wrong at the time and that they are wrong again tonight in what their spokesman, the hon. member for Newton Park, said.

Sir, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn should not take it amiss of me if I do not dwell on his speech at length. I think that in the first place it reminded me a great deal of a second maiden speech. In the second place, the speech by the hon. member has simply revealed in effect the typical attitude we find, with the average hon. member on that side when the Coloureds are discussed, an attitude of “we do not really know where we are going; we let things take their own course; we give with the one hand and take away with the other, but we may as well call it parallel development”. For that reason I should rather identify myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that we on this side of the House are prepared to support the Second Reading provided that the hon. the Minister can convince us that all these clauses seek to promote education. Sir, we are dealing here with an amending Bill on education, and in order to qualify as such each of its clauses must promote education. Now we are saddled with the problem, especially in view of the insufficient light shed by the hon. the Minister on the various clauses, that in respect of certain clauses there can be no doubt—i.e. they do promote education—but in respect of other clauses and possibly in respect of parts of other clauses, it is questionable whether they really promote education.

Mr. Speaker, may I give you an example. As regards clause 3, we have no doubt; it does promote education. When we look at clause 3, it is particularly interesting to find that the hon. the Minister took as the basis for the amendments contained in clause 3 the legislation relating to education for Coloureds and for Coloured races in South-West Africa, which we passed here last year. In the case of the legislation relating to education for the Coloureds, for the Basters of Rehoboth and for the Nama in South-West Africa it was, for instance, possible for the hon. the Minister to grant financial assistance not only to pupils, but also to students. The Minister is now effecting amendments in clause 3 in terms of which financial assistance may also be granted to Coloured students. But, actually, he went further than that; he also extended it to another type of Coloured person, and that is the type of Coloured person who is neither a student nor a pupil but a person who nevertheless requires certain training. The hon. the Minister is prepared to grant financial assistance to them as well. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is a good thing that these benefits being enjoyed in South-West Africa have been transferred to the Coloureds of the Republic and that he has even extended them. But, Sir, when we come to clause 2, it is very difficult for us to support it unconditionally. We have no objection to the principle that a private school must be registered. Nor do we have any objection to the principle that the hon. the Minister must have the right to cancel that registration, but the way in which the hon. the Minister wants to apply the principle in the first place, is something we find alarming, to say the least of it. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he wants to avoid confusion, it will be imperative for him to take another look at this specific clause at the Committee Stage. As this clause reads at present, there is no doubt that an individual is prevented by this clause from providing education to another individual unless this is done, as it is put here, at a State school a State-aided school, a school of industries, a reform school, a correspondence college, or, of course, a registered private school. And what does “at” mean? It has only one meaning, and that is physically in that school. In other words, any person who does so outside, will be guilty of an offence. Such a state of affairs simply will not work in practice. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister to draw comparisons with the other education ordinances we have in South Africa, and I think it is particularly interesting to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who said, inter alia, that we wanted to give the Coloureds everything enjoyed by the White child. I want to prove to him that by way of clause 2 we shall be taking away from the Coloureds privileges enjoyed by White pupils and White teachers. What would the hon. member say to that? His reply would of course be, “Oh well, all of this is simply parallel development.” But I am not so convinced of that. The hon. the Minister must understand full well that nowhere in the principal Act was any prohibition imposed on the provision of education by one individual to another. A prohibition was in fact imposed on a person to manage a school at which more than 14 pupils were enrolled, and that is in section 6 of the principal Act. But here we find that in clause 2 this is stated very clearly: “No person shall … provide for reward education to Coloured persons …” In the past this was: “No person shall manage any school … Now I must ask the hon. the Minister this: is it at all possible for him to give us a guarantee that in terms of this legislation a Coloured teacher will have the right to provide education to a Coloured pupil after hours? Does the Minister and all the hon. members opposite expect the Coloureds to accept it to be normal procedure that whilst it is possible for every White teacher in South Africa and for every Nama teacher in South-West Africa, and for the Basters of Rehoboth and the Coloureds in South-West Africa, to give private classes to pupils after hours, with the approval of their principal or the director of education, they will not be allowed to do this in terms of this clause? They will only be allowed to do this if they are prepared to run the risk of incurring a fine of R500 or 12 months’ imprisonment, as it is stated in clause 2. Now, is this parallel development? This is not even parallel with the Coloureds in South-West Africa, let alone the hon. member’s idea that we should give them everything the White child is enjoying. How can the hon. the Minister avoid confusion? I want to tell him that the principal Act was much clearer. The principal Act dealt with certain matters, with a person managing a school, and there was a definition of a school; it had to be at least a classroom or building with 14 pupils, but what do we find now? We now find a vague concept. Reference is made to the provision of education. From the nature of the case the provision of education is a vague concept, for what is education? Education may in fact be the imparting of any form of knowledge by one individual to another. [Interjection.] No, let us look at the definition. What do we find in the principal Act? It states—

Sir, can you think of a wider definition? It is so wide that I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister how he is in fact going to bridge over this problem. He appreciates that if he does not put it beyond all doubt, and these are our reasonable conditions …

That is a wrong interpretation.

The hon. the Chief Whip says it is a wrong interpretation. I merely gave the definition which is given in the principal Act and which defines “education”. If that is a wrong interpretation, that definition of “education” in the principal Act is wrong.

I am not talking about the definition; I am talking about your interpretation.

But if a person may not provide education to another person, surely we must determine what the definition is. The definition simply means that if one Coloured teacher were to provide for reward education to another person after school, he would find himself in trouble, as I have already mentioned. In respect of clause 2, as it reads at present, we therefore believe that measured in terms of the criterion of promoting education, this does not qualify, for one may go wherever one pleases and one will find that there are hundreds, even thousands of White pupils who are passing the matriculation examination purely as a result of the extra classes they receive after hours. I know the hon. the Chief Whip was a teacher, too, and he knows this is true.

If you had been my pupil, you would have known more.

If we were to place this clause on the Statue Book as it reads at present, who would eventually be the losers? The losers would be the thousands of Coloured pupils in South Africa.

Now I come to the second aspect, and I want to say once again that in principle we agree with the hon. the Minister that the Minister must have the right to be able to cancel the registration of a private school. In that regard we have no quarrel with him. However, it is very regrettable that if this clause were to be placed on the Statute Book like this, we would have the position that the Minister would be able to cancel the registration of a private school for Coloureds in a harsh manner. I am the first one who will admit that there was a deficiency in the principal Act. The principal Act only made provision for sentences for offenders, but not for the cancellation of the registration of a private school. In terms of this clause the Minister now has certain powers, and I want to quote subsection (3) of the proposed new section 6—

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who expressed the wonderful thought that what we are doing to the Whites, we should also do to the Coloureds.

You cannot forget Oudtshoorn.

Let us see what is being done at private schools for Whites in South Africa. We find that in the Transvaal the registration of a private school may also be cancelled, but it may only be cancelled after the Director of Education has set a date to the proprietor of that private school and determined certain conditions which must be complied with. That is the position as far as the Transvaal is concerned. In the Free State the position is neither fish nor flesh, for there the position is that after the Administrator has been satisfied that a building is unsuitable for a private school or that such school is managed in a way which may be detrimental to the physical, intellectual and moral well-being of the pupils attending that school, he may direct the owner of that school by written notice (a) to close the school immediately or (b) to change such building or the way in which the school is managed in the manner and within the period determined in the notice. In other words, there, at least, the owner is still given a change to remedy what is wrong. Now let us take a look at a province such as Natal, which is of course a model province! What do we find in their ordinance? I agree that it would be irresponsible for me or any other hon. member to say, “Go ahead; establish a private school”, whilst one does not have the right to cancel that registration. One must reserve the right to cancel the registration. What procedure is one to follow? Let me now read this to hon. members—

This is the way we treat our private schools for Whites in South Africa. If we are to follow parallel courses in South Africa on a road leading nowhere, we just want to ask that everybody should at least be treated alike. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are also other reasons which I deplore. As I have said, it is very obvious to me that one of the motives for the introduction of this Bill was actually one which sought to put the edlcation of Coloureds in the Republic on a level with what is being enjoyed by the Coloureds in South-West Africa, the Basters of Rehoboth in South-West Africa and the Nama in South-West Africa. I can accept that the Department is after all responsible for the education of Coloureds in South-West Africa as well as here in South Africa. That is why we find that clause 1 defines the definition of “vocational education” and puts it on a level with the definition which we find in the three Acts relating to Coloured education in South-West Africa. In other words, the benefits they enjoy there, are also transferred to the Coloureds in the Republic. This is also the case in respect of clause 3 in regard to funds. What is to me a deplorable point, is that while the hon. the Minister had this wonderful opportunity, he did not extend the other benefits enjoyed by those population groups to the Coloureds here in the Republic as well. I can give hon. members a few examples. In terms of the principal Act relating to Coloureds in the Republic and in terms of the Acts relating to Coloureds in South-West Africa, we find that both groups have the right, for instance, to form school committees and to have local school boards. This is a good thing, for the principle in that respect is the one that the parent must have a share in the education of his child. In South-West Africa we find that a school, a hostel or facilities may only be closed after consultation with the local committee. In looking at the principal Act of the Republic, we find that the benefits enjoyed by Coloureds in South-West Africa have not been transferred to the Republic. In addition we find that both Acts do of course define misconduct of which teachers may be guilty. In South-West Africa one may be a member of a political party without being guilty of misconduct, but in the Republic one still has the position that if a Coloured teacher becomes a member of a political party, he is automatically guilty of misconduct.

Where did you get that from?

It is stated in the principal Act, and the hon. the Minister did not avail himself of the opportunity to amend the principal Act. In regard to the majority of these clauses the motive was to put the position here on a level with the existing position in South-West Africa. But he made certain exceptions, and all I want to know from the hon. the Minister, is why.

You are talking nonsense.

Is the Minister denying it then?

I never referred to South-West Africa.

The Minister did not refer to it, but he transferred to the Republic the same clauses, the same benefits that are in force in South-West Africa. Of course, the hon. the Minister has only been in his present office for a few months, and perhaps he does not know what is stated in the Acts we passed here last year. In South-West Africa a teacher may, for instance, criticize in public the activities of any department except his own. However, this does not apply in the Republic.

What does that have to do with this legislation?

Let me now make the matter clear to the Minister. In clause 1 of the Bill a new definition of “vocational education” is given, namely, “education or training which the Minister by notice in the Gazette declares to be vocational education for the purposes of this Act;”. This definition of “vocational education” is the same as the one in the Act for South-West Africa.

So what? That is the definition.

But why was only this one definition changed and not the others as well?

To what other definitions are you referring?

Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that he is not aware that in South-West Africa there are certain provisions in terms of which a teacher is guilty of misconduct? All I want to know from the hon. the Minister, is why he did not extend those benefits to the Republic.

Order! I have now given the hon. member an opportunity to put his case. Now he must come back to the Bill.

I shall come back to the Bill and, to be specific, to clause 1(1)(d), which deals with Coloureds who may receive training after Std. 8. Persons who have passed this standard, may also receive training at training colleges now. The position in the past was that Coloureds could only receive instruction at teachers’ training colleges on condition that they had passed Std. 10. In other words, they had to have passed Std. 10 before they could receive such training. In the past we had the position that a Coloured person could be trained as a teacher if he had passed Std. 8. However, he could not attend a teachers’ training college after passing Std. 8, since a training college for Coloureds could only admit people who had passed Std. 10. Persons who had not passed Std. 10, therefore had to receive their training at an institution which was known as a training school. The hon. the Minister is remedying this position now—to a certain extent, so I believe, as a result of pressure brought to bear in practice—by providing that any person who has passed Std. 8 will in future also be able to attend a training college and qualify as a teacher there.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is another example of clauses which we can support, for it is very clear that the object of the clause is the promotion of the teacher. Then I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that it actually makes one feel sad to think that in South Africa the position in respect of the Coloured teacher is still so poor that we still have to fall back on persons with a Std. 8 certificate and have to give them two years’ training, which one can in fact only call a “glorified matric”, and then expect them to be teachers. That just goes to show us that there is a tremendous backlog for us to make up in respect of education. Especially as far as the Coloureds are concerned, this is a case of the sooner we can do so, the better.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Durban Central resumed his seat, the facial expression of the hon. member for Newton Park more or less amounted to this: Old chap, you did your best !

You still have to try.

I just want to say that in the end we no longer knew where the hon. member stood in regard to this legislation. His leader, the hon. member for Newton Park, did at least make it clear that they were supporting the legislation, except that they wanted elucidation from the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 2. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that clause 2 does not seek to put the legislation relating to Coloured education on a level with the legislation relating to White education; the only matters dealt with the growing circumstances and needs of Coloured education as the department has to deal with them and as requests are submitted. The position is that in the past application was in fact made for the establishment of private schools for Coloured pupils by Coloureds. For that reason it goes without saying that the hon. the Minister and his department must deal with those requests in a fair, reasonable manner, that they must reply to them, and that in order to give a reasonable reply they must make the necessary statutory provision. We should like hon. members opposite to accept that in this respect the department is acting in all good faith, that it is acknowledging the right of Coloured parents to have also their children taught at private schools, provided that they can afford it, and that by way of this clause the hon. the Minister and his department are making provision not only for the establishment of such schools, but also for proper inspection, proper control and even for the necessary penalties should contraventions occur. On the other hand, if they are convinced that this legislation, as it is, is sound legislation, hon. members need not wait for further explanations; what is written in the legislation, may be accepted by hon. members as being simple Afrikaans or English, depending on the language in which they read it and which they understand better.

I want to point out further that I welcome the fact that by way of this legislation the hon. the Minister is laying a broad foundation for vocational education for Coloureds. It is true that we sometimes gain the impression that the more academic trend does not cater for a large percentage of our Coloured pupils at school because these people do not have such a marked aptitude for academic subjects and are in many cases more practically inclined and have more aptitude for vocational subjects, in which they are often more interested as well. As the demand arises, just as there is a demand in the Western Cape today in regard to the training of Coloureds as, for instance, motor-car mechanics and in many other fields, the hon. the Minister is laying the foundation in clause 1 of this Bill, namely for planning and work in respect of vocational education for Coloureds to take place on a broad basis.

I should like to submit to the consideration of the hon. the Minister that in our whole planning of Coloured education we should take these facts very duly into account. The pass percentage for Std. 8 and especially Std. 10 shows us that a relatively small number of them are capable of attaining the senior certificate standard. We take it that this percentage will in fact increase over the years. What this underlines, however, is that we should not overlook the fact that on the part of the Coloureds there is a very strong need for vocational education. We shall therefore have to start with vocational education at a fairly early stage. We must give our high schools in particular a strong vocational bias so that the Coloureds need not waste years at school while they have no aptitude for or are making no progress in the more academic subjects. But when it is clear to us that they are practically-minded and have a vocational aptitude in a particular field, we should guide and train them in that field. We should as soon as possible prepare as many of them as possible for jobs and occupations. As I have said, the foundation is being laid here, and I want to encourage the hon. the Minister and Parliament to carry on along these lines, and I want to express the hope that in this respect Coloured education will be made as up to date, effective and fruitful as possible.

Then I also want to express a few thoughts in regard to the subsection dealing with training colleges. I remember that while the previous legislation was being dealt with—I think it was in connection with the University of the Western Cape—the Opposition had grave objections about the fact that more Coloured lecturers were not being appointed. The question was asked why these people were not getting more recognition for the high posts. Now we see what is being done here. Provision is being made here for training colleges and for candidates with a senior certificate. But provision is also made—and this is necessary— for those persons who wrote the examination but were not successful, as well as for those who have obtained a Std. 8 certificate. That underlines the fact that in spite of the continued growth of Coloured education and the large numbers of pupils at school, there is still a tremendous shortage of teachers. The fact remains that as yet we simply do not have a sufficient number of people who are properly qualified to be trained as teachers. What we should set ourselves as an ideal to be pursued, is that in future prospective teachers should at least have passed a senior certificate examination. But if we were to set that as a requirement today we would be cutting the throat of Coloured education. Then we would simply not have sufficient teacher material at our disposal. Therefore this is an interim provision which is essential. We have now reached a stage of broadening the scope of Coloured education. We are providing education to Coloureds on a primary level at least and therefore to the largest number of pupils possible. This provision is being made in the Bill, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for it as well as for the fact that those who have a Std. 8 certificate and are interested in the teaching profession, are being afforded an opportunity of making their contribution. That is really necessary. In due course we shall in fact be able to make progress and raise the standards as well.

We also welcome the introduction of bursaries for Coloured students. One finds that from time to time there are intelligent Coloureds who do not have the financial means but ought to be trained. They ought to be afforded the opportunity of attending a training college or university or even to do post-graduate study and research. It is only in this way that we shall in due course train the people who can also be appointed as lecturers, not only at training colleges, but also as professors at the University of the Western Cape. They will also be able to follow other specialized professions. We welcome this legislation and hope that in this way generous support will be given to those Coloureds who really have the talent and display the necessary diligence.

Sir, I am very sorry that hon. members on the Opposition side who participated in this debate, are not present now. However, I notice the hon. member for Newton Park has just returned. Right at the outset I want to quote the following to him from the Educational Services Act, Act No. 41 of 1967—

That is vocational education.

Vocational education is simply being described here in particular, but education is education. This sectiondeals with the registration of private schools. The hon. member has now discovered a single word in the section, but he does not understand the issue. It is clearly stated here: “Registration of private schools.” I just want to point out to the hon. member that he really did not do his homework well.

That is the old section.

The old Act had a deficiency which we now want to rectify, for after the Educational Services Act was passed in 1967 it was decided not to proceed with the establishment of private schools for Coloured education because the need for them did not exist. In time the need did in fact arise. Recently we have been receiving requests for permission to establish private schools. The Administration of Coloured Affairs is already providing extramural education in terms of its policy of expanding Coloured education. Education is being provided after school hours by teachers and others. They are doing so for reward, but under control. When we provide education to Coloureds, do hon. members opposite not also want it to be thoroughly controlled? Do they not want us to lay down standards …

Only for the Whites.

… to make it possible for us to inspect schools and for our department to have certain rights? Sir, without this clause, which is precisely the same as the section in the Educational Act for Whites, we would surely be leaving the door wide open to abuses. Sir, the Administration of Coloured Affairs, which will deal with the administration of this Act, has in recent years followed a policy of expanding provision of vocational schools, which have now expanded to such an extent that we have to make vocational education subject to the Minister’s approval so that we may provide an increasing number of services by making available an increasing amount of education. At present we are even making provision for Coloured persons at training colleges who have not passed the tenth standard, but who would like to enter the teaching profession. If those Coloured persons want to make a contribution then we afford them the opportunity of acquiring an intermediate primary teacher’s certificate. Sir, surely hon. members opposite do not expect us to have to spell out everything to them. A word to the wise is sufficient. This entire amendment Bill consists of four or five clauses which became necessary as a result of deficiencies which we discovered in the first place in the definitions, etc; in the second place because we have since as long ago as 1964 been training Std. 8 candidates in training colleges, and because we now have to legalize this. After all, there is nothing wrong with bringing the registration system of private schools into line with the registration system as we have it for White schools so that we are able to exercise better control over these schools. We are giving the Minister wider powers here. The hon. member also referred to the number 14. Sir, I cannot see why the number 14 should be included, for in reality we are being granted wider power now. I think that hon. members opposite ought to accept my guarantee that the entire idea behind this amendment Bill is not one of restriction but one of expansion. The object is to create more opportunities and not fewer opportunities. The object is to render financial assistance to these people, where previously this could not lawfully be done. As was described here, we already have the example of another Act. It has already been described in the Educational Services Act, Act No. 41 of 1967. I should like to say thank you very much to hon. members who made contributions to the debate, also to those members who differ with us. I do not know whether they are satisfied with my explanations, but I can keep on explaining the whole night long—if a person wants to differ, he will continue to differ.

Will it be possible for a Coloured mathematics teacher to provide education after hours to one of his pupils for reward at the home of the Coloured person, not at the school?

The department has its conditions. I cannot deal with specific cases. Conditions have to be imposed. Of course such a person may charge something, but if he is registered as a teacher, one could also find abuses. He could provide education to five or six Coloured persons, and then it is a money-making concern.

But does he first have to register as a private school?

No, not at all, that is not necessary.

In the case where a person is not a teacher, but nevertheless has the qualifications, a degree for example, to teach a subject like biology or some similar subject, and if he provides education outside the school to help such a child, will the department allow this or not?

Conditions have to be laid down. After all, I cannot tell you whether he will be allowed to do so or not. There could be something wrong with that person. He could provide education to even one pupil, and it could be a private school.

Can the Minister say whether something like this is prohibited in the case of a White child who wants extra lessons?

As far as I know, this is not prohibited.

Then why do you want to prohibit it in the case of Coloureds?

I am not going to prohibit anything which is allowed by the legislation. The entire problem is simply that exceptions have to be made. If a person wants to give a child a few lessons in the evening on an ad hoc basis, and he charges something for that, what kind of inspection can there be? We are speaking about private schools. After all, we do not go miles out of our way to drag in something here which does not fit into the context we are dealing with here, namely a school, an ordered function within a certain specific building in which one assembles at night, or in the day, and where tuition is given under certain conditions and according to certain standards. We must abide by that. Sir, I think I have explained as well as I am able. I do not think hon. members have any need to be concerned about this matter, that is, if they are sincere in what they said, that they want only the best for Coloured education. I should like to thank the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the hon. member for Piketberg for their fine and balanced contributions. I also want to thank hon. members opposite for their interest in Coloured education, although we have said a lot which was not really necessary.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, J. E. Potgieter, P. C. Roux and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.