Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches wish to oppose the motion for leave to introduce this measure. Although we and this House are at a disadvantage because we do not know the full text of this measure, nevertheless the notice of motion given by the hon. the Minister makes it quite clear to us that it would not be in the interests of this House to pass this particular Bill. In fact, looking at the wording of the notice of motion, it appears that this Bill is nothing other than a further deprivation of the already limited rights of the Coloured people, that it is a negation of the very essence of the parliamentary or representative system of government...

Order! I must warn the hon. member that the scope of the debate on this motion is very limited.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. This notice of motion which seeks to give the hon. the Minister authority to exercise and perform or cause to be exercised and performed the functions and the duties and the powers of the Coloured Representative Council boils down to the negation of the undertakings given by this Government to the Coloured people. Indeed, these words herald in the collapse of the Coloured Representative Council as a representative institution as opposed to an agency to be taken over by the Government in terms of this notice of motion.

What disturbs us even further is the timing of this notice. The timing of this notice which was given on the day the Coloured people went to the polls, to our minds reflects a cynicism towards the electoral system, towards the Coloured people, which can only create greater animosity and mistrust. For these reasons we believe that this House should not agree to give the hon. the Minister permission to introduce this Bill. The wording of this notice of motion indicates a deprivation of Coloured rights. At the moment the Coloured Representative Council has certain powers that it can exercise under its own jurisdiction. In terms of the wording of this notice of motion, the hon. the Minister will take over and perform all these powers, and not only the legislative powers but the executive powers and indeed the advisory powers which are at present entrusted to the Coloured Representative Council.

Only under certain circumstances which you do not know of yet.

We will deal with the certain circumstances in due course. I am dealing now with this notice of motion as it has been presented to us. As I say, this is a negation of the undertaking given to the Coloured people that the powers of the Coloured Representative Council will be extended. That is the essence of what the hon. the Prime Minister told this House at the beginning of this session. He told us that there would be an extension of the powers of the Coloured Representative Council and yet the terms of this notice of motion make it quite clear that there is going to be a contraction of those powers.

The third point is that it negates the very essence of the representative system of government. The short title of this Bill is the Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Bill, and yet the very words used by the hon. the Minister indicate that that council is no longer going to be representative of the Coloured people. Indeed, an individual is going to take over the powers, and in terms of those powers that council will cease to be Coloured and it will cease to be representative. Instead there will be sole power in the hands of a single White Minister acting on the authority of this House.

The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs interjected that it does refer to certain circumstances. It is quite true that those circumstances are the only aspect of this Bill that is not defined. All the other aspects are clearly defined. One therefore wants to argue about what these certain circumstances might be. Does the hon. the Minister believe that the circumstances might be that the Coloured Representative Council itself will decide not to function, not to exercise its powers, and that in the vacuum thus created the hon. the Minister should assume those powers? If this is so, then I want to say that the Government is anticipating the collapse of the Coloured Representative Council. What other reason could there be for the words “in certain circumstances”? I put this to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs: Can he conceive of any circumstances other than those to which I have referred?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the hon. the Minister is conceding to all intents and purposes that the life of the Coloured Representative Council as an effective representative body of the Coloured people is coming to an end, and that a single White person is now going to be the arbiter and the authority in regard to the fate of the Coloured people. I want to tell hon. members opposite that they should not be surprised that in terms of this notice of motion the hon. the Minister is anticipating the end of road of parallel development for the Coloured people. This will be the end of the road of the Coloured Representative Council. [Interjections.] This notice of motion states that a White Minister will take over the powers, the functions and the authority of the Coloured Representative Council. The ultimate cynicism is the fact that this notice of motion was given on the day on which the Coloured people were electing that council. They were not told in advance that the Government was going to seek these powers. What cynicism! What cynicism to tell the Coloured people that they should conduct an election but behind their back to concoct legislation to take away their powers and to replace those powers with a single White man as the authority over the 2½ million Coloured people in South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I realize that hon. members opposite are upset because they have to admit that this notice of motion reflects the end of the road as far as the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy for the Coloured people is concerned. It reflects the rejection of the Coloured Representative Council as a council representative of the Coloured people. The tragedy is that hon. members on the other side have become so enmeshed in the products of their own race ideology that they can no longer understand the desires of the people and especially of the Coloured people. What happened yesterday? The hon. the Minister’s seeking leave to introduce this measure cannot be divorced from the election which took place yesterday. Hon. members opposite do not realize when the Coloured man is being hurt. They do not realize when he is being humiliated. They do not realize when he is yearning for recognition as an individual citizen. Therefore, when their council collapses, when the grand edifice of apartheid comes to the end of the road after 27 years, instead of giving notice to this House of the intention to disband that council and to give Coloured people full rights, this Parliament is being asked to give a single Minister supreme rights over the Coloured people of South Africa. This is the height of cynicism and I believe that if this motion is agreed to and this Bill is passed, it is going to fan the flames of hatred and enmity and mistrust between the racial communities in South Africa. For these reasons we have no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting the motion for leave to introduce this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that this Bill means the end of the road as far as the Coloured Representative Council is concerned. We on this side of the House have stated repeatedly that if the Government is determined to stand by the unitary system, it has only one alternative, and that alternative is to give the Coloureds representation in this House. Sir, time and again we have pointed out that the powers that they have already taken to introduce and to pass the Budget in the Coloured Representative Council and the powers that they have taken to overrule decisions of the Coloured Representative Council make it perfectly clear that they do not believe that this council will ever mean anything at all. As far as we in the official Opposition are concerned, we believe it is high time that the cards were put on the table. This Government does not mean that the Coloured Representative Council should ever succeed; it is never going to mean anything at all. It is in the position of having to say what the Government tells it to say or it will cease to exist. As far as we are concerned, we believe that this motion should be supported. Let us have the cards on the table. Let the whole world know that as far as this Government is concerned, this Coloured Representative Council is just a rubber-stamp; that it means nothing at all. Therefore, Sir, we will support the motion for leave to introduce this Bill. There is a clause in it which provides that in certain circumstances the Minister may act. We will examine those circumstances when the Bill comes before us, but as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, let us have the moment of truth and let the world realize that this council means nothing whatever at all. It is merely a symbol; it is merely an instrument the Government can use or overrule or do with what it likes once this Bill is on the Statue Book. Therefore, Sir, we are going to vote for this motion for leave to introduce the Bill. We want this Bill before the House; we want it introduced; we want it debated. We want the public and the world to know what the attitude of the Government is towards the Cape Coloured people. We warned last year, we warned in the No-confidence debate this year, and we have warned again and again as to the attitude which is arising, and I think it is high time that this whole issue was debated in this House. We believe that leave to introduce this Bill should therefore not be refused.

Mr. Speaker, when the information was given originally that leave would be sought to introduce this Bill, we immediately realized the significance of it. We have already publicly expressed our concern over the fact that this particular piece of legislation is introduced almost contemporaneously with the holding of the elections for the Coloured Representative Council. Sir it is quite remarkable that this should happen at the same time, and it is also quite remarkable that we should be debating this very matter at this time when in fact the results of this election are still coming in. Sir, this is something which certainly demonstrates a degree of cynicism in politics which I think has seldom been equalled. What is important to note at this stage is not only this cynicism, but the fact that the Coloured people over the years have been promised a greater part in the determination of their own affairs. Even if there are some who do not wish to use the Coloured Representative Council as an instrument to achieve this, the timing of this piece of legislation can only do harm to any endeavour to try to bring about a consensus with the Coloured people in South Africa. We believe, Sir, that under prevailing conditions it is not enough to say that if the unitary system continues there should be Coloured representation in Parliament. Sir, there is a system prevailing at the present moment and we believe that in terms of that system there is no adequate substitute for Coloured representation in Parliament. We would appeal to everyone who has goodwill to set about negotiating to bring this about at the earliest opportunity. Sir, with respect, I have some difficulty with the view expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He wants the Bill to be introduced either in order to oppose it or to support it. It is not enough for the official Opposition to say that it is either going to oppose it or support it. I think the Opposition should say today whether it is in favour of it, or whether it is not in favour of it. The official Opposition is again seeking to sit on two chairs at the same time, and they are going to end up sitting on the floor. Sir, one issue is very clear and that is that the legislation which the Minister seeks leave to introduce is designed to give the Minister the power to exercise the duties and functions of the CRC. The simple question that has to be answered is whether in fact that power should be given to anyone, whether anyone should exercise that power, and it is on that issue that the official Opposition is unwilling or unable to give an answer. That is why I say that it seeks to sit on two chairs at the same time. This failure on the part of the official Opposition to make up its mind is perhaps the best example of an endeavour to try to satisfy both sides. We have no difficulty about this. We think that to introduce this measure at this time is a piece of cynicism. We think that leave to introduce should be opposed and we believe that not to oppose this motion is to break faith with the Coloured people in South Africa.

You are deliberately distorting the position.

Order! The hon. member for Durban North must withdraw the words “deliberately distorting”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “deliberately”.

And “distorting”.

If you say so, Sir, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this party’s standpoint as regards the Coloured population is clear to everyone in this House, but I just want to restate it very clearly. Looking at this notice of motion against the background of the speeches concerning the Coloured population made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House and against the background of the speeches concerning the future of the Coloured population made by various members on that side of the House, one has no alternative but to oppose this motion, because the Prime Minister expressly stated that for the Coloured population the road that lay ahead was one of a greater degree of consultation, a greater say, greater participation and increased responsibility. One would have been able to accept in all reasonableness that the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations would give notice during this very session of a motion that would spell out the circumstances in which this House would not withdraw powers from the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, because as the constitution of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council reads at present, this House has full powers in any event, because the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council cannot take any decision in conflict with the wishes of this House. One therefore had reason to expect that notice would be given of a motion stating that there were certain circumstances in which this House would not allow any interference in the affairs of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. This would have been a logical consequence of the speeches we have heard from members on that side of the House and also from the hon. the Prime Minister in recent times. That is why I cannot understand the official Opposition adopting this standpoint in this situation and saying they are prepared to accept the motion, because surely it is clear that they too have been exposed to the promises made to the effect that there would be greater decentralization of powers as regards the Coloured population, that they would be given more rights, that they would have executive powers and so on. This motion gives notice that in stated circumstances precisely the opposite will occur, because in stated circumstances these powers will be taken away from them. In all honesty, I must say that it is not clear to me how one can have a Constitution for the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council in which it is clearly spelt out in one section that that House does not, in any event, have the power to take decisions in conflict with the will of Parliament, and that in addition we can still have a motion here spelling out even more clearly that there may be circumstances in which the Minister may act as the sole representative of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council or take over its functions in those stated circumstances.

I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Yeoville. It really looks suspicious to me that this motion was introduced neither a day before the election, because then, in my opinion, it would undoubtedly have had an influence on the results of the election, nor a day after the election, because then the Government could be accused of having done it in view of the election results. The fact is that this motion was introduced for discussion on the very day on which the election took place. I honestly think that any reasonable person would have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that this was an act of political cynicism. Furthermore one is unable to escape the conclusion, merely on the basis of the wording of the motion, and quite apart from the specified circumstances in which powers may be withdrawn, that this is an implicit incorporation of a safety valve in the expectation that the Government’s own Coloured policy is not going to succeed. No other opinion on the matter is possible. It seems to me that to a certain extent this is a motion of no confidence, a motion motivated by uncertainty and a lack of clarity with regard to the Government’s policy for the Coloured population—not at the lower levels of contact, not as regards the economic upliftment of the Coloureds, but in regard to the institution which the Government regards as a symbol of the emancipation of the Coloured population. If it is the symbol of emancipation, one asks oneself how that emancipation can take place when a motion is being discussed here in which this very possibility of emancipation is denied in certain circumstances. Consequently we have no alternative but to oppose this motion at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the question has been posed why we support the introduction of this measure. Supporting the introduction of the measure does not by any stretch of the imagination mean supporting the contents of the measure. This Bill before us is, as my hon. leader has pointed out, the final act on the part of this Government in its admission to South Africa and to the Coloured people that the end of the road has been reached in so far as the present Government policy towards Coloured people is concerned. That is the reason for introducing this Bill. It is an emergency measure which the hon. the Minister wishes to have discussed in this House. We of the official Opposition will welcome a discussion of the necessity for this measure. After all, Sir, you will stop me if I attempted to debate the merits of what might or might not be in the Bill, which unfortunately has apparently been published in the Press but has not been supplied to hon. members of this House yet. The Bill is known apparently to the Press but not to hon. members of this House. You would stop me, Sir, if I attempted to debate the merits. We on this side of the House seek an opportunity to discuss with hon. members opposite the merits of this measure, because I believe that this is a time of reckoning for South Africa in regard to the future line we are going to take in our relationships between White and non-White, and particularly between Whites and Coloureds. This measure will give us that opportunity. I hope the hon. the Leader of the House will give it a high priority on the Order Paper so that we can discuss the matter because of its great importance, not only to the Coloured people but also to South Africa and to South Africa’s position in Africa and in the world. And so, Sir, it is quite clear why we welcome this and why we shall support the introduction of this Bill.

You welcome it?

We welcome the introduction of this Bill because it affords us an opportunity of exposing completely, by debate with this Government, the policies which have failed and which we have told this Government year after year would fail. We have been telling the Government this for years, long before the hon. member for Yeoville raised his voice in this House. My hon. Leader has year after year said that this policy would fail as far as the Coloured people were concerned. When we support the First Reading of this Bill, we do so not because we support the principles of this Bill and what it intends to achieve, but because it presents us with the opportunity of having the Government expose, as it must in motivating this measure, its own acceptance of the failure of its policies.

Mr. Speaker, there have long been alarming indications in South Africa that the policy of separate development of the Nationalist Party was going to be a complete and tragic failure in our political history. One of these indications has been the statements of some of the homelands leaders recently, one of which was that the policy was an exercise in discrimination. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the Coloureds. Today we are dealing with the first actual and factual evidence indicating that the policy of separate development, as far as the Coloured people of South Africa are concerned, is standing on the threshold of a total collapse.

Then why do you not want to discuss it?

I do want to discuss it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss that policy and I want to discuss the situation. There are plenty of opportunities to do so.

When?

I am not prepared to adopt the “ja, maar” attitude of the United Party, who say that they want this Bill before the House so that they can then discuss it and oppose it. We are against the Bill because we are totally opposed to what the Bill sets out to achieve. The policy of the Government is one of sovereignty for all the national groups in South Africa. We have heard statements which have been continually made by the Government as to how they are going to allow every national group in South Africa to exercise their own rights and to have sovereignty within South Africa. They have never explained how that is going to be done. They have never explained how in one country you can have different groups, each with their own sovereignty.

Order! The hon. member must return to the scope of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, may I just quote to you one statement which was made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central very recently.

Does it concern the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would not mention it if it did not. He had this to say—

Mr. Speaker, you might think that that comes directly from the manifesto of the Reform Party, but that in fact came from the hon. member for Pretoria Central. The promise of the Government to the peoples of South Africa, the undertaking of the Nationalist Government to the world and to the United Nations, was that every group in South Africa would be allowed and entitled to govern themselves without interference and to conduct their own affairs. Here, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where, far from moving in that direction and far from building this new future for the different groups in South Africa, the Government is dismantling or, let me say, intending to demolish the structure which they have up to now pretended to the outside world they were creating. As far as we are concerned we want to make it absolutely clear right at the outset that we are not prepared to adopt a “ja, maar” attitude in regard to a matter as fundamental and substantial as this. Let us make it clear to all the groups in South Africa and let us make it clear to the Government that we are totally opposed to an action of that sort. Interference with the rights of other people has reached the limit and we cannot associate ourselves with any further demolishing of the rights of other groups in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker. … [Interjections.] I am grateful for the admiring chorus with which I am greeted. I want to try to get some sense into the debate, although it is not necessary for me to add anything to what has been advanced by my hon. leader and by the other members on these benches as their reasons for opposing leave to introduce this Bill. What I have stood up to say is merely that I cannot understand any of the reasons that have been advanced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Green Point as to why they are agreeing to permit the Minister to introduce and I have listened very carefully to the reasons that they gave. I have seldom heard so much sophistry in this House as I had to listen to this afternoon.

Would you like the CRC to stay as it is now?

It is not the purpose of this Bill to improve the CRC. The purpose of this Bill is for the hon. the Minister to take over the powers and functions of the CRC. That is how I read the simple language in which the motion for leave to introduce, is couched. I cannot see how the hon. member for Green Point can possibly read into that motion any intention on the part of the hon. the Minister to extend the powers of the CRC or to improve the way in which it functions. The hon. member for Green Point made mention of an emergency situation, but I do not know what emergency he is talking about. There is no mention of emergency …

The Nationalist policy has failed.

The Nationalist policy has been failing for 27 years. [Interjections.] So, therefore, and more particularly as far as its Coloured policy is concerned, we are in a state of chronic emergency. For that reason the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. Leader of the Opposition say that they welcome the opportunity to debate these things in this House.

And you don’t.

Of course I do not. On the contrary. Like my hon. Leader I refuse to give this Government permission to introduce such an atrocious measure. They are going back on all the promises which they made to the Coloured people when they took away their representation in this House and set up this substitute body, the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I do not want to be any part of any machinations to reduce further what meagre powers the Coloured people have in South Africa. This is the first step to do that very thing. We want to register our protext at the very first opportunity. If the argument is used that we ought to have an opportunity to debate the Bill, we should never oppose it in any circumstances, i.e. leave to introduce a Bill into Parliament. Isn’t that correct? There is the logic of it [Interjections]. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration says that it is right. The rules of this House permit the Opposition to oppose leave to introduce and that right has been used time and again, even by the official Opposition when it had thought of it itself. That is the real reason why they are not voting this afternoon. [Interjections.] That is the real reason. They simply did not think of it first. I have long ago in dealing with the official Opposition, the United Party, ceased to look for complicated reasons for what they do. They are always simplistic to the extreme. The answer is purely and simply that they were here caught off guard; they did not think of it themselves. It goes against the grain, it is loss of face for them to support a motion of this importance, the motion which was introduced by my hon. leader this afternoon. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point says that he wants to debate this motion, because then it can expose the Bill. We do not want the Bill, we do not want to expose the Bill and we do not want to debate the Bill. I want to say that the duty of the official Opposition is, not to expose in Parliament, but to oppose in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Standing Order No. 112 the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this Bill is not allowed to reply to the debate. Consequently I just want to say a few words. This is not the first time in the history of this Parliament that a protest of this nature has been heard. Probably one would not wish to do anything to deprive hon. members of their right to have their protest heard. The question which occurs to me, however, is this: Are hon. members so certain that this legislation will have to be applied? I have heard no argument to indicate that this legislation is superfluous. I have heard only protests against the legislation. I have heard from hon. members of the Progressive Party, and from their new appendage, that they take the severest exception to the acquisition of these powers by the Minister. In other words, the hon. members proceed from the standpoint that circumstances may arise under which the hon. the Minister will have to use these powers. Otherwise they would have argued that this legislation is superfluous. However, I have heard no arguments to the effect that this legislation is superfluous. During the past year the Budget of this particular Council was R133 million. I do not know what will be available for the next year. If circumstances were to arise which made it impossible to administer R133 million in the interests of the Coloured population of the country— and the Minister can only explain the situation by furnishing us with the reasons during the Second Reading—who has to administer the money then, if the objection of the hon. members is accepted.

What a failure of a policy!

It is of no avail talking about future policy now. The hon. members are not in office; an amount of R133 million has to be administered under the present system.

This is a system which has collapsed.

I did not say a word when hon. members opposite were presenting their arguments. Would they not do me the courtesy, too, of keeping quiet for just a moment? I did not say a word; I did not interrupt hon. members. I just want to ask one thing. Suppose it is not yet possible to implement the policy of the hon. members tomorrow. Under the present system it is necessary, in the meantime, for an amount of at least R133 million to be administered.

There are people who have to receive salaries.

Yes, these people have to receive salaries, and there are also people who have to receive pensions, and poor people who have to be assisted.

High-school debating.

No. [Interjections.] Would hon. members not please display courtesy to me too? Or is this perhaps the kind of politics we are going to have when hon. members are in power? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton can never stop talking. She is quite unable to contain herself. [Interjections.]

Order!

My argument is that we should afford the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs an opportunity of furnishing us with the reasons why, under given circumstances, he has to administer more than R100 million himself. Is this a new principle? No, it is not. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed, the following provision was inserted by this Parliament (section 71)—

This Parliament therefore accepted a similar principle when it passed the Transkei Constitution Act. Does anyone now want to allege that the Transkei has been deprived of rights because there is such a provision in their Constitution act? Surely that is nonsense. [Interjections.] What is more … [Interjections.]

Order! I expect hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a courteous hearing.

Oh, Sir, one does not expect anything like that from the hon. member for Rondebosch. In 1972 legislation was passed in regard to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Section 6 (c) contains a similar provision, only it just does not go far enough. Did we hear this uproar at the time? Where does this sudden uproar come from now? It almost seems as though certain hon. members know about certain things which we do not yet know about. It is very suspicious. Possibly hon. members could give us more information, for they have been arguing all afternoon that the policy of the hon. the Minister has collapsed. How do they know that? Do they have any proof? We have not yet heard what the hon. the Minister has to say. Do hon. members not wish to afford him the opportunity of telling us why he is doing this?

You know the reasons.

The hon. Minister may furnish reasons, but the hon. members do not want to afford him the opportunity of furnishing these reasons. The hon. member refuses to enable the Minister concerned to furnish this Parliament with his reasons. This is the kind of free speech which hon. members of that party advocate. I suggest that they reply to two questions. In the first place they must tell us how they want to enable the Minister, under given circumstances, to apply and implement his Budget. In the second place they must furnish us with the reasons as to why they do not want to give the hon. the Minister a hearing. All that is now being done here is that a step is being taken to enable this House to listen to the Minister. He cannot at this stage furnish us with the reasons. For that reason it seems to me that what we have here is once more the normal little protest which we usually have from people who, owing to their behaviour, will always remain a small faction of a faction in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton made certain statements which cannot pass unchallenged. She accused this side of the House of being simplistic in its reasoning. The problem is that the parties behind us and to our left follow a method of tortuous reasoning, not straight reasoning. They are so accustomed to tortuous routes and tactics that they cannot appreciate straight reasoning.

The Bill which the hon. the Minister proposes to amend was amended in 1972 and that amending legislation contained a provision whereby the Minister was enabled to appropriate moneys. It granted him widespread powers, which we opposed.

Which other widespread powers?

I shall quote them. I quote section 22(2A):

Does the hon. member for Sea Point support that?

The powers are already there.

Yes, the power is already there. The hon. member for Sea Point has no objection to those powers, but if he will consult Hansard of 23 May 1972, he will find in col. 7821 that the First Reading of that measure was introduced without opposition from the hon. member for Houghton, without any objection whatsoever. The hon. member for Houghton was prepared to give that Draconian power, the power of the Minister to appropriate money, without any opposition at its First Reading. When we say that we want to debate this proposed Bill …

I never said I welcomed it.

… we do so for two reasons. We want to debate it because, as my leader has said, it exposes the total failure of Government policy. What it is doing—this point has not yet been made— is to leave a vacuum. If the Minister is to take power to carry out the powers of the Coloured Representative Council, it means that there is a vacuum in the political structure affecting the Coloured people, a vacuum which has to be filled by the Minister operating in this Parliament. We as that Parliament must debate that vacuum. We in this Parliament must suggest what is to be put in place of that vacuum which the hon. the Minister says he wants to fill by taking certain powers. We believe it should be filled in another way and we are prepared to debate this and to thrash it out once and for all to let South Africa have the facts. However, the noisy group behind us and the Progressive Party apparently do not want to debate this. The Progressive Party was prepared to give the Minister full control of all finance for the Coloureds. They did not object to that Bill at the time. They have a committee to formulate their policies but they have not formulated their policy yet. In other words, they do not have a policy yet; they are still busy formulating it. Nevertheless, they oppose the introduction of this measure and this implies that they know what is in the Bill. We do not yet know what is in the measure; we only know that it indicates a vacuum. We want to be able to put to South Africa what we propose should fill that vacuum in relation to the political future of the Coloured people. I hope that, in view of the attitude adopted by the bits and pieces in this House, they will admit that they are not now going to speak in the debate which will follow. [Interjections.] They have no right to speak in that debate. By opposing the creation of an opportunity to debate this issue, they have abrogated their right to participate in that debate. Nevertheless, they will want to speak in that debate; that is typical of their attitude. Their attitude is: “We can oppose it because, in any case, we know we shall not be able to stop it but we shall still be able to speak.” We are more honest. We say: “Let it be introduced; then we shall discuss it with the Bill in front of us.” They, not having seen the Bill, say that they are opposed to its being introduced but nevertheless they are going to want to talk on it. I believe they have sacrificed their right to take part in that debate. We intend to put our case on the measure itself when we have the Bill before us, its contents and its proposals. There is nothing tortuous about that. The only tortuous thinking comes from people who seek in every decision and in every political action some form of intrigue or backdoor objectives. There is no such thing in the United Party. Our attitude is straightforward and clear.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that, rather than debating a vacuum, we should debate the reality of what is happening today. I think it is a tragedy in a way that not longer than two weeks ago we had the Prime Minister telling the country that the dilemma which faced him and the Nationalist Party with regard to the Coloureds had finally been solved and that he now had a way of giving to different peoples equal sovereign rights within the same country. We see the solution of this dilemma in the motion the hon. the Minister is putting to this House today. The way in which the hon. the Prime Minister has decided to solve this dilemma very simply is to ask leave to introduce into this House a Bill the long title of which provides that under certain circumstances the Minister must exercise all the rights of the Coloured people. What I find distressing is that the hon. the Minister of Defence gets up and advances an argument as to why this motion should be agreed to. There is an amount of R133 million on last year’s Budget and if the Coloured Representative Council should fail to appropriate this money then there would be nobody to appropriate it. If that is the reality he is afraid of, if he is afraid that the will of the Coloured people is so strong that they are prepared to deny money to their own teachers, their own pensioners and so forth because of their abhorrence of the policies which are being forced upon them by this “baasskap” Government, then I think this Government has the responsibility to go and talk to the Coloured people, to sit down with the Coloured people and talk to them and to work out something that is acceptable. [Interjections.] Do not come here with a Bill of this nature or with the intention of introducing a Bill of this nature into this House. At one moment the hon. the Prime Minister says they have solved the dilemma and then they come to light with this type of Bill and say that they are going to enforce its provisions and decide what is going to happen. The election is not yet even over and the results are not even there and that side of the House has not even had the courtesy of going along and talking with the leaders of these people. There is another point. As far as I am aware, a number of powers for the appropriation of this money already exist. If, after consultation, it was found necessary simply from the point of view of the sheer mechanics of getting money from a certain source to people who need that money to do so, it would surely be possible to come back to this House and pass some legislation with retrospective effect to meet this position. There is no doubt that the very fact that this motion is before us today is the most cynical and completely devastating evidence of the mala fides of this Government in respect of the Coloured people of South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, when the hon. the Minister replied to the debate in the Committee Stage of this Bill, he gave us to understand that as far as the financing of capital requirements is concerned, nothing can be done to take further income from other sources, because there is legislation which prohibits it. I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister. He referred to the Post Office Readjustment Act. I take it that that law was passed by this Parliament when the Post Office became an autonomous department for the first time, and that this was part of the agreement, but I do not know whether that agreement was the kind of agreement which is known today as a “package deal”.

†Sir, I doubt it very much. I believe that this was merely a preliminary arrangement made between other Government departments and the Post Office as to who would pay for the various services rendered by the Post Office and how much would be contributed. I do not think that when this law was made there was any intention on the part of this House, or even on the part of the Minister, that the amounts that were to be debited against the various Government departments were to remain constant and static for ever after. I believe that the time has arrived, now that the Post Office has been an autonomous Government department for quite a number of years, to re-examine this matter. I would have expected to hear from the hon. the Minister that that was one of the matters he would be prepared to go into, but what do we find? We find that the hon. the Minister says that there is this Act which regulates the amounts payable by the various Government departments that is that; he is not prepared to do anything about it.

I find this a curious attitude, because it is the same sort of attitude we find when we ask the Minister whether he would go into the question of training facilities for non-Whites. You will remember, Sir, that in his speech he said that the limiting factor in regard to training facilities was the availability of such training facilities and the availability of instructors. Now the hon. the Minister, in reply to the Committee Stage, said that in fact there were these limiting factors and that we just had to accept it. I do not think that is good enough. I think the hon. the Minister should go into the question whether he can arrange for additional facilities and he should go into the question whether he can in fact find instructors. If he cannot find instructors, then I believe it is the duty of the Minister to train instructors. Surely, instructors can be trained just as other technicians can be trained. But to say that he cannot do anything in regard to the training of non-Whites, anything better than we are doing now because he has limited facilities for training and does not have the instructors, is rather adopting a dog in the manger attitude. I would like to see the Minister shaking himself out of his lethargy and doing something about it. I do believe now is time to do this. The time has arrived, and I think the hon. the Minister should get down to the job of training these people.

*The hon. the Minister also said that he was not prepared to make concessions to pensioners in regard to telephone rentals and also told us why he could not do it. He said, amongst other things, that if he did it for old-age pensioners, he would most probably have to do it for those who are physically disabled as well, and for a whole lot of other people who would also be able to demand these concessions. But I have a suggestion to make to the hon. the Minister. I should say that a very easy way to solve this matter would be to take the age limit as the factor. Why can the hon. the Minister not investigate it on the basis … Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to speak while there are hon. members standing up and speaking in the aisle.

Order!

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that if he were to take the age limit as a factor and to say, for instance, that elderly people who have reached the age of 70 years ..

Order! Hon. members may not continue their conversation in the aisle.

… such people may in fact receive telephone services at a reduced tariff, less than the prevailing tariff. Sir, this is a very important matter. It is a matter for which we on this side of the House have been pleading for many years. I think one must remember that there are many old people of 70 and over who live alone, completely alone, and that the telephone is their only connection with the people outside. These are people who cannot manage easily or who find it difficult. I really think it is a matter which the hon. the Minister may very well investigate. If he then says 70 is too young, he could make it 72 or 73. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us that he is prepared to investigate the matter. I hope he will not say that it is impossible to do anything about it. I should like to receive the answer of the hon. the Minister in this connection at the end of this debate.

Then we come to the question of cables. Cables are actually the life-blood of the telephone and telecommunications system. Unless there are proper cables we shall never have a proper telephone and telecommunication service. Even if we have all the instruments and all the apparatus of the most modern kind at the transmitting exchanges, it will still not be possible to supply that service to the ordinary telephone subscriber unless there are proper cables. Now the hon. Minister tells us that cables are a source of great difficulty. He says cables will be installed gradually. But that is not good enough, Sir. Gradual installation will get us nowhere. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us: “I have a plan in connection with cables. I am going to replace these tables that are worn out this year. Next year I am going to replace those cables”. At the same time I should like the hon. the Minister to have yet a further plan in connection with cables. To be specific, I should like to see that when there are new extensions, these are not dealt with on the priority basis. That is the basis on which the hon. Minister told us he proceeded. Instead, the hon. the Minister should organize his department in such a way that when new developments take place and a new residential area is set up, those people can immediately be supplied with a telephone service. The cables must not only be laid as the residential area concerned comes into consideration for such a service on the strength of its position on the priority list. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is going to compile a list of priorities. If he has compiled such a list of priorities, I hope he will table a copy of it so that we can see which new townships appear on that priority list and so that we can also see to what extent those priorities are being carried into effect. I should say that there is only one way of dealing with cables, and that is by replacing those cables that do not function efficiently enough with cables which do function efficiently, and by laying new cables at all new developments immediately.

†Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of postal deliveries. This is a matter the hon. the Minister also dealt with during the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister said that he did not believe that there were any great delays in postal deliveries, although in most places there was only one collection and one delivery per day. He also mentioned that when post offices were far removed from the General Post Office, there were delays in collection because the mail had to be collected and taken to the General Post Office for sorting and further dispatch. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two pieces of mail which I posted recently. I think he will be shocked to hear what I have to say about this. These two letters were posted by me quite recently, during this session. The first letter was posted on 4 March 1975. It was posted by me at the General Post Office in Parliament Street, Cape Town. It was addressed to a post office box in Paarl, about 36 miles away. Enclosed in this letter was a cheque which was urgently required by someone in Paarl. Eventually, when this letter and cheque had not arrived in Paarl by 12 March, eight days later, I made arrangements to stop payment of the cheque. I went to a great deal of trouble. I could hardly get away from the House to do so, but I had to run down to the bank to stop payment of this cheque. I then issued a further cheque and posted it in a second envelope. In order to make quite certain that the letter would get there, I posted it in an official envelope. Do you know what happened? On the day after I had posted this letter the first letter arrived in Paarl. It arrived in Paarl at 13 March— eight days later. By that time I had already written to the bank to stop payment. I then had to contact them again to tell them to ignore the stopping of payment so that this first cheque could be paid out. When the second cheque was posted in Cape Town on 12 March I told them: “Please return it to me because I want to keep a record of it”. The cheque arrived in Paarl this morning, 20 March. It took eight days to get to Paarl. The first letter was posted on 4 March and arrived in Paarl on 13 March; the second letter was posted on 12 March and it arrived in Paarl on 20 March. Paarl is a mere 36 miles or 58 kilometres from Cape Town. If we had had a runner with a forked stick and I had the use of that runner, I would have got very much better service than I had from the Post Office during this month of March.

This is wrong. These things should not happen and the hon. the Minister should see that they do not happen. Both of these letters were posted at the General Post Office in Cape Town and both were addressed to a box in Paarl, a post office box at Paarl post office. One cannot understand how that sort of thing can happen. I know that it is a very short distance and I know that there is other mail which goes to other parts of the country and which perhaps takes a little longer. This, however, is a very good example of how badly things are being managed by the hon. the Minister at the present moment. I believe that the hon. the Minister must go into this question. He cannot say: “Because the postal part of my department does not pay, I am not going to do anything about it”. Because the postal part of the hon. the Minister’s department does not pay, he must find ways and means of making it pay. The only way he can get it to pay is to let it run efficiently. He can only let it run efficiently if he pays attention to it. I say that the hon. the Minister has not been paying proper attention to the postal part of his department. I urge him to do everything in his power and to spend more of his time on the postal side of his department and to put it in an efficient working order.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that in his criticism of this Budget, the hon. member for Wynberg can take two letters out of millions and millions and try to use them to prove that the postal service is inefficient. What about the millions of letters that reach their destination within a day? When one handles a mass of post like this, then surely it can happen that from time to time one out of a hundred thousand or one out of a thousand may be delayed along the way.

Two in the same month?

How one can make such a statement and criticize the postal administration and the delivery of post, is too much for any normal person to understand. In the course of this debate, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and the hon. members on the other side of the House, have criticized much and said little. They have advanced a great deal of criticism, but how many solutions did they in fact suggest here?

When the phenomenal announcement was made that we were going to have a change-over to a new era of modern electronic switching—something which will result in the very things which the Opposition is pleading for, namely saving of money, saving of time and saving of labour—the entire undertone of their argument was not one of great enthusiasm, but one which amounted, basically, to: “It is too late.” That is the kind of criticism that has been expressed.

Why, in this process, does the Opposition not refer to the exceptional achievements, the positive and real progress made by the Post Office in recent years and in this year to which the Budget applies? The phenomenal progress that has been made since this department acquired a greater degree of autonomy seven or eight years ago in 1968 is reflected in this exceptional report which is, in fact, brilliant testimony to the strong and positive growth and achievements in all facets of the department, which serves all population groups.

If one goes further and looks at the postal administration and its achievements, one sees that it is a stable and positive organization. Here we do not get the paralyzing postal strikes that have been experienced in England and France in recent years. Nor do we have here the chronically inefficient postal system of Italy, where tons of letters have had to be sent to the pulp mills, nor do we have an uncontrollable, chaotic telephone backlog like the backlog of two million telephones in Japan and the backlog of more than a million telephones in France, which costs that country more than R3 000 million every year in lost business. In spite of the announcement of higher tariffs, there is still a real increase in the demand for telephones in South Africa. Compare this situation with that of Hamburg, the commercial capital of Germany. What does one find there? In that highly developed industrial area there was in fact a 65% drop in applications for telephones when telephone tariffs were increased. That is surely sufficient proof of the strong and sound infrastructure of the postal administration here and of South Africa’s phenomenal growth in the economic and industrial spheres. That is why we can be proud of the service and performance of the Post Office and the fearless way in which the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his officials face problems and solve them or attempt to solve them. The hon. member for Wynberg once again brought up the issue of additional sources and then they came back once again to the argument that has been raised here repeatedly, namely the 8% increase in tariffs.

I did not talk about tariffs.

The consumer now has to pay R38 million more. What they are opposed to, then, is the necessity for the consumer to pay so many million rand more, an amount that is now going to be applied towards running expenses and capital expenses. However, we have seen that there has been a 24% rise in maintenance costs in the course of a single year. We know that there have been salary adjustments and that there was a narrowing of the wage gap, something which the Opposition favours. Is one not, then, to make provision for this inflationary increase in costs? What do bodies like Escom, or local authorities that provide water and other services, do? After all, they too have to borrow capital and recover the interest on those loans and the redemption of capital from the consumer. In the nature of the case one can surely not take it amiss of the department if it, too, recovers its capital expenses by means of a higher service tariff. When one complains about a higher service tariff—when, for example, one states that four cents is too much for a postage stamp, or that five cents is too much for a telephone call unit—then one’s complaints really border on the ridiculous. That we do have problems, cannot be denied. We know that we have a backlog of 98 000 telephones. During this debate the Opposition revelled in the fact that this backlog had increased by 1 200. As against that, however, we provided 123 000 telephones and that is a record. That represents an increase of 11000 telephones. If this increase in the number of telephones is set against the backlog of 1 200, there is a gain of about 10 000 telephones over this year. In this country the number of telephone subscribers per hundred members of the population is one of the highest in the world. I know that it is difficult to draw comparisons by way of figures. It is difficult because we have various race groups in this country and because the use of telephones among the Bantu and other coloured groups is substantially less than among the Whites. However, if one takes the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians alone, we have an average of almost 30 telephones per 100 inhabitants in South Africa. In my opinion that is an exceptional achievement as against the 10,8 per 100 of France, the 17,6 per 100 of West Germany and the 19,4 per 100 of England. In spite of the problems we have with our long distances and the maintenance expenses over those long distances, we are providing the people of South Africa with an exceptional service in this regard. We concede that everyone will want to strive to reduce that backlog of 98 000. Bottlenecks often occur, too, because there are growth points whose rate of growth has been higher than that planned for, or because that growth was accompanied by a paralyzing shortage of labour. I want to make the statement today that there is probably not a single Government department in South Africa which has done more about the recruitment and training of staff and labour than this very Department of Posts and Telecommunications. We need only consider the 630 technically trained immigrants recruited overseas, the close to 3 000 persons undergoing technical training at the colleges of the department, the 145 students studying with bursaries from the department, the R20 000 made available for the establishment of a chair in telecommunications at the University of Pretoria and the imaginative training courses offered throughout the country for Bantu, Brown people, Indians and Whites. We could also consider the internal restructuring that has taken place this year with a view to the optimum utilization of staff, from the top management down to the official at the lowest level. As far as training is concerned, one must be practical and logical and realize that owing to circumstances, we are standing with our backs to the walk One reason for this is the fact that throughout the Western world there has been a drop in the number of people undergoing technical training, just as there has been a 500% drop in the number of students qualifying in the natural sciences and physics. In the second place, one must bear in mind that many of the people we train—we cannot get away from this—unfortunately have to be relinquished to the trade. We shall always be saddled with this. I believe that this department is capable of going ahead with the training of Coloureds, Indians and Bantu on an exceptionally large scale, as is already the case at present, to train them for employment in their own areas to see to their own needs as well as the needs of those White areas where their employment will not be accompanied by friction and Whites being pushed out of their jobs. I also believe that we in the Cape Province have a Coloured labour potential which, if the problem of the instructors can be bridged, can be utilized to the maximum extent. I think that we should consider combining the theoretical training at Kensington and the practical training depot at Bellville, with a view to the establishment of a giant training college where Coloureds may be trained for employment in White areas on a large scale, with the provisos I have mentioned. Furthermore, we know that in the coming era of electronic switching, there may be a saving of up to 75% in this field. I believe that this is the method we should adopt in order to try to conserve labour.

If we dwell for a moment on the telephone shortage, we realize that 98 000 represents less than 5% of the total number of telephones in South Africa. This is only minimal if the dynamic industrial growth, the residential growth and the growing demand for telephones among the non-Whites is taken into account. The figure of 98 000 is also misleading because half of the people are short-term applicants. Half of these are people who have only been waiting for a connection for a month or a few months. Even if we were able to meet all practical needs, we would still find that in a flourishing country like South Africa, with its growing population there would at all times be at least about 50 000 people who would have to wait—whether for a week, a month, two or three months—for the installation of a service. In this regard I believe that if the backlog is reasonable, no one will be able to reproach the Post Office with having neglected its duty, because in the process it has also had to give attention to the transfer or repair of half a million telephones in the course of the year as well as the repair of telephones owing to natural disasters. It also occurs that whereas orders for essential materials such as cables and tarred poles are placed years in advance, those materials are not delivered on time because, for example, the Departments of Defence and Transport also require similar equipment.

This brings me to the question of planning, and more specifically, the question of cables, to which the hon. member for Wynberg also referred. I should just like to say at this stage that the department plans its services in an exceptional manner. The position is quite the opposite of what the hon. member for Wynberg tried to maintain during the Second Reading debate. This department has full-time urban and rural planning and development teams. These are the people who are continually liaising with local authorities, with town planners and with the Departments of Statistics,’ Planning and the Environment and Community Development, in order to keep pace with township development and the demand for telephones. These teams carry out local inspections every day and plan block by block in order to determine the thickness of the cable required and the overall size of the exchange. These are departmental people who serve on public committees in order to keep pace with the development in each, specific area.

In this regard I should like to take as an example a constituency which, I believe, is going to show the most growth of all constituencies in the Cape Province over the next five years, perhaps even of any constituency in South Africa. I should like to test the planning of the department against the needs of that constituency. For these reasons I take the constituency of Durbanville, not because it is my constituency, but because it is the constituency in which 1 500 dwelling units are to be built in the year ahead. This constituency already has more than 40 residential areas, while more than 20 residential areas are still at the planning stage. This constituency comprises the fast growing Durbanville, the growing section of the Bellville municipality and constituency, the largest growing section of the Parow constituency, the largest growing section of the Goodwood constituency and a large growing section of the Milnerton constituency. When I was elected, I immediately made a survey of the telephone requirements at existing houses and also for proclaimed areas that has not yet been developed. I immediately ferreted out the necessary information and sent a comprehensive letter to the Minister in which I said: “All hell is loose here because as far as telephones are concerned, I am going to have a hard time of it.” Do you know what happened then? I received a letter in reply in which I was informed that there was a plan for each area, which was about to be carried out. The department was even aware of the 20 planned residential areas for which streets had not even been laid yet and where there were still only port jacksons. I had wanted to bring this to the department’s attention, but they had already made provision, in their planning of cables, for the necessary service to these areas. As a result of this, a new Durbanville exchange is to be opened this year with 2 200 additional lines and 2 600 additional lines will be made available to the new exchange serving Bellville North this year. Also as a result of this there is no shortage of telephones in the Parow area. In fact, in the entire constituency of Parow there is a waiting list of only 50, and in Bothasig there is no longer any waiting list at all. This is an indication of the department’s advanced planning and how they keep abreast of the development that is taking place.

Taking all these factors into account, I think that we can say here today that this department is a positive department with its finger on the pulse of planning and the provision of services, a department capable of facing all the inevitable problems that will crop up in this year of service, too, and of solving them to South Africa’s advantage.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see, when a Government member speaks, how two values can be attached to the same figure. The hon. member for Durbanville spoke of the 98 000 applications on the waiting list for telephones and said that that was minimal, that it was a drop in the ocean, that it did not count. However, when other members speak of the just over 100 000 new telephones which are being supplied,—only a few thousand more—then that is a wonderful achievement, then it is one of the most wonderful things that has ever happened. [Interjections.] They say, “Look! We have supplied 123 000 new telephones in one year”. If one says the figure slowly, 123 000, then it is the world, but if one says the figure 98 000 quickly, then it is minimal, it is nothing. These are the double standards we get from their side. The hon. member also spoke of a postal tariff of 4 cents. He does not think, however, of the amount of R530 million made up of those 4 and 5 cents and which is taken out of the pockets of the users. He only speaks of the single amount of 4 cents and not of the of R530 million.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister failed or refused yet again to reply to a number of questions and allegations. I raised five specific points to which the hon. the Minister did not reply. I cannot believe that he did it by accident; I can only think that he did not reply to them deliberately. I should like to make the points again. I alleged that more than 50%, 55% to be specific, of the capital expenditure came from current revenue. In his speech the hon. Minister gave the figure of 50%. That extra 5% represents a big sum of money. From the Second Reading debate, throughout the Committee Stage up to this, stage, the hon. the Minister has not replied to this. The figures are clear. There is R47 million from revenue funds and R64 million in respect of depreciation. This comes to an amount of R112 million out of a total amount of R213 million. The amount from loan funds comes to only R94 million. The hon. the Minister refuses to reply to this. I want to allege once more that he goes further than the Franzsen formula of 50/50, to which we are opposed even on that basis. We are even more opposed to the fact that he now takes more than 50%.

†The hon. the Minister has silently ignored that criticism just as the has ignored the criticism that where approximately 7% more telephones have been supplied and 15% more traffic, he has taken 66% more profit out of telecommunications during the past financial year. In other words, the profit is out of all proportion to the additional services and the additional traffic which the system carries. I want to give him best on one point. I was a trifle unfair, which I accept, but I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have been quick enough to pick it up and come back at me when I spoke of 30% depreciation.

I interjected.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, it was 30% of the Budget; it is not 30% on the total capital. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have picked that up. However, he did not pick it up. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark sniffed something but he did not realize what the actual position was either. However, I give them that point. Let’s make them happy on that point! But, Mr. Speaker, I do not give any points to the Government for its failure to give an effective answer to our argument that today’s user of the telephone is required to carry the burden for past interest plus future capital requirements. He is paying interest on past loans and he is contributing 55% to the capital requirements of the future. The Minister says: “This principle is recommended by Franzsen; I accept it and that is the end of the story”. Sir, we do not believe that it is the end of the story. We believe that it should be the beginning of a period of re-thinking which should take place, particularly in view of the escalating tariffs.

The hon. the Minister completely ignored the case that I raised here of the Bantu reporter who was reported in the Press to have been reported to the Police by a telephone exchange because he spoke surprisingly good English. I think we are entitled to an answer from the Minister in this regard. Sir, there are other minor matters on which he has not given us any answer, but I do not intend to spend further time on them. What I want to do, as I said I would in the Second Reading debate, is to make a few suggestions for the future as an alternative to the traditional attitude of the department that where a service is labour-intensive and therefore unprofitable, the only answer is either to increase the tariffs or to cut down the service. That is the standard answer, “Raise the tariffs or reduce the service”, whereas we believe that the answer lies in finding a way of streamlining the service or handling it in a different way which will make it less unprofitable or even profitable. Let us look at a few possible suggestions. I do not know if they are practical; I do not know if they are technically realistic, but I would like to know whether they have been looked at, because we have not had a single suggestion from that side of the House as to how to improve the service.

Sir, most of the mail in the cities is business mail—accounts, letters and business correspondence. Instead of the present posting system under which you have air mail on the one hand and surface mail on the other as the division, you could have posting boxes with an automatic coding stamp, so that when you push your letter through the machine it will be coded automatically for Central Durban—to use Durban as an example—or Durban North, or Malvern or Bellair, or whatever the case may be. The basic sorting, which is a major job, would then be done automatically. The stamping of the letter with the magnetic code for the sorting machine would then be done automatically as you post a letter. You could then give the person who thus sorts his own mail for the Post Office a discount on postage; you could make the postage 3 cents instead of 4 cents, so there would be an incentive to the user to do this job. This burden would then be taken off the shoulders of the Post Office. That letter could then automatically go into a sorting machine, ready for delivery. [Interjection.] I put forward this suggestion as a positive idea. Sir, look at the many businesses which have automatic stamping machines. Why cannot those stamping machines be fitted to give the imprint for your automatic sorter? When you stamp your letter with your automatic stamp, you could at the same time put on your magnetized code reference, and that letter could then be sorted automatically. Sir, at present every letter that is posted has to be hand-coded by a girl before it is put into the new machines that we are going to get. If the businessman, who in any case addresses the letter and who in any case has to put it through the stamping machine, had the incentive of a saving of ½ cent in postage to do that job, you would be saving the Post Office this labour-intensive work.

Let us take the question of mail posted in bulk. Here again there could be an incentive. You could say to your poster of bulk mail that if he hands that mail in, sorted into street order ready for delivery, he will get ½ cent off his postage. At election time, for instance, you address your mail from cards which are in street order. If you provide the incentive, the man who is doing the work anyway and who is addressing those letters will, if he is going to save himself money, hand them in, in street order, ready to go straight to the delivery section without any manual handling at all. If you were to differentiate between junk mail and commercial mail, and you charged higher fees in respect of junk mail, I believe that would also save a lot. It should be punitive on junk mail, in fact, in view of all this nonsense you get pumped at you.

Sir, I have not time to mention many others, but I want to mention one. I believe the classification between surface and air mail is a wrong classification. The classification should be between local and away mail. Your 4 cent postage should be for local mail and the 5 cent postage for away mail and then this should all go by air mail. At present it involves double handling. You have to sort first into surface and then air, and then one lot goes by surface mail from Durban to Cape Town while another lot goes from Durban to Cape Town by air. If all the away mail were automatically air mail and the local mail was the equivalent of surface mail, I believe it would save handling, it would be more logical and it would give a faster service. Take an express letter from Durban to Cape Town. If it is sent express mail, it can take seven days from Durban to Cape Town. Most people think that if you send it express it will go air mail, but it does not. Express mail only goes express to the train and then all the way down to Cape Town by train, three or four days by train, and then express to the recipient. All express mail should automatically be air mail. So you could streamline and reduce handling all along the line.

Lastly, I want to suggest that something should be done about some of the telephone accounts. I had a case yesterday where the widow of an ex-member of this House received four telephone accounts in three months, and three of those accounts debited her with exactly 141 units in each month. She says that even though she may be a fairly regular person, she does not believe that she can have exactly 141 units three months in succession and get four accounts for a three-month period, the extra month being thrown in for good luck. Sir, I have tried to give some positive suggestions and to point out the facts on which the Minister has failed to answer. I hope he will now do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point must excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I shall come back to what he said shortly in general terms.

Is this your farewell?

Apparently this is the last opportunity I shall have to participate in the Post Office Budget debate. Regularly, for the past 13 or 14 years, I have had the privilege of participating in debates under this Vote. Before the Post Office became independent, the Post Office fell under the Main Budget as an ordinary Vote. At the time, the SABC also fell under this Vote and debates on the SABC and television usually took up most of the available time, and in fact, dominated the debate. Later, in 1970, the SABC and television were transferred to the Department of National Education, and as a result the debate has since focussed on Posts and Telecommunications as such. It was a very wise step on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister to transfer them to the Department of National Education.

Sir, since it acquired financial autonomy, the Post Office, with its various subdivisions, has progressed by leaps and bounds. Circumstances have been difficult. Capital and funds have been limited, but nevertheless the progress made has been exceptionally good and systematic. Planning has been exceptionally sound at all times, and in contrast to the criticism levelled by the Opposition, there is still regular advance planning, as the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech indicated.

Since I came here, the Opposition has had the following chief spokesmen on postal affairs: In the first place there was Captain Henwood of Pietermaritzburg District. Then we had Mr. Etienne Malan of Orange Grove, whose speeches always concentrated on the SABC and television. Then the hon. member for Durban Point acted as chief spokesman. The hon. member is very heavily loaded. He is our political opponent, but he is the good friend of many of us. He has broad shoulders, and I read in one of the newspapers the other day that the hon. member is the shadow Minister of almost everything. He is shadow Minister of Railways, of Defence and now of Posts as well. The hon. member prepares himself very well, considering the time he has at his disposal, but sometimes his arguments are not so cogent. Then he is very theatrical. His arguments become noisy, and at such times he makes one think of the old clergyman who jotted down notes in the margin of his sermon. Where his argument was not very convincing, he wrote: “This argument weak; here one must shout ..

We on the National Party side have had the following chief spokesmen through the years: In the first place there was the late Mr. Gideon Knobel of Bethlehem. Subsequently we had Dr. Connie Mulder, the present Minister of Information and of the interior. We also had Mr. Jan Rail, who did not stand for re-election. Now we have my friend, Mr. Jan van Zyl. These persons have always made a very thorough study and conducted the debate at a very high level.

I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the officials in general. I should also like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the Postmasters-General who have occupied that post during this period. There was Mr. Botes, who is still alive, the late Mr. Strauss and now Mr. Louis Rive. All were and are outstanding persons of the highest integrity, people whose inspired approach to their task was backed by confidence and drive. One experienced great goodwill and friendliness in one’s dealings with them. That does not apply to them only, but to all the officials as well.

Sir, I have represented constituencies in the east of Pretoria which were situated in growth points in that area. Initially, from 1961 to 1966, I represented Pretoria East. That constituency grew to such an extent that at the time of the 1966 delimitation it was divided into two constituencies, viz. Waterkloof and Koedoespoort. Subsequently I represented Koedoespoort, which is also situated in a growth point. That was from 1966 to 1974. If the Post Office experienced its growth pains anywhere, then it was in those very parts of Pretoria. But the goodwill was there. When telephones were requested, exchanges were built or expanded and post offices were built. I want to address a special word of thanks to the Post Office officials in Pretoria who provided telephones at the various polling stations and offices with great speed and thoroughness. This applies to the officials here in Cape Town, too. One had only to drop a note in the post addressed to the Regional Director, to find that when one came to one’s flat, the telephone was installed. That is very highly appreciated. Here in the Parliamentary Building we have various facilities, inter alia a post office. In the course of time we have had various postmasters who have been friendly and helpful people. They has been a very good advertisement for the Post Office. Here in the exchange we have had young ladies, in the course of time and there are still some of them on the exchange. They are friendly, helpful, hardworking and charming young ladies. We convey our thanks to them, too.

Thanks are due to a dedicated staff. It is as if a new spirit arose among the officials after the Post Office became autonomous. It is a spirit of dedication, sacrifice and loyalty towards the hon. the Minister and the Management. One need only remember that the offer to work two additional hours a week to compensate for the shortage of staff came voluntarily from the ranks of the Post Office employees. As a result of this, business could continue despite the major shortages in the various sections. I just want to refer with deep gratitude, although this has already been done, to the sacrifices made by officials at the time of the recent floods on the Rand. The technicians of the Post Office worked at a terrific pace day and night to repair the damage to telephone lines so that everything could function normally again. Teams from elsewhere agreed to go to the Rand to assist there. All the available technicians were working so much as 36-hour shifts in order to repair the telephone connections damaged by the rain. Up to 4 600 telephone lines per day were repaired. The damage caused in general by storms costs the Post Office a great deal of money every year. In the first place, it is costly to replace damaged material. In the second place it costs even more because the technicians who work on this and are pinned down to the repair service, are prevented from installing telephones at new places. The complaints made are often misplaced in the light of what I have said here.

Every year the hon. the Minister has rightly made mention in his speech of the harmonious co-operation between the Minister, the Management and the staff as well as the staff associations. I have always been a regular reader of the various official organs or mouthpieces of the various associations. I refer now to the White staff associations. The loyalty of those people to the hon. the Minister, to the Management, to the Post Office as such and to our Republic, is apparent from the introductory articles, the ordinary articles and the letters. This is very greatly appreciated. I could quote a number of extracts arresting to that loyalty, conveyed by carious leading figures in the associations acting as mouthpieces. Today I just want to quote one typical example. At the congress of the South African Postal Association which took place in Johannesburg last year, the president, Mr. Lotter, addressed a word of warning to the members of association to think hard before resigning from the service of the Post Office. Reference to his speech is made in the Association’s organ, the Postal Journal of September 1974. The president, Mr. Lotter, believes, and I quote (translation)—

He also went on to say (translation)—

Office a good image.

Those are fine and inspiring words, expressing stimulating ideas.

I see that my time is almost up and I just want to conclude by conveying my personal thanks to the Minister. I want to wish him and the whole Management, too, all of the best and express the hope that he will get a positive reaction from the Opposition in the future, not the kind of reaction we have had in these discussions.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Gezina has delivered his swan-song. When a person has outlived his period of usefulness, he is usually moved on to other pastures.

How small can you get?

We can only wish him well and a long and happy period in that other pasture which we hope he will find greener than the one over here. We can support him in his praise for the staff of the Post Office. We give him unqualified support in that, but we do ask the hon. the Minister to give the staff a chance. We ask him to give the Post Office the tools and the manpower it requires. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister not to stretch the loyalty of the staff too far. They are doing the best they can, but if he does not help them that loyalty can be stretched too far.

In Pietermaritzburg we have a telephone problem which I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. In reply to a question two weeks ago he told me that there are still 877 lines available in the existing exchange. However, there are 1 989 outstanding applications. I wonder why 877 of those people cannot get their telephones now. I am afraid' they are tired of waiting.

Business interrupted in accordance with, Standing Order No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by referring to the hon. member for Gezina, who has just spoken. Today he made his last contribution as member of this House. As an old friend and as the Minister responsible for this portfolio, in regard to which he frequently made a contribution, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity at the outset of my speech to convey a few words of sincere appreciation to him for the many years of competent and good service which he has rendered as parliamentarian. Over the years we have come to know him as a person who made a thorough study of his various subjects. Therefore, when the hon. member for Gezina rose in this House to make a contribution, we could listen to it. His speeches testified to proper knowledge and background study. In that respect we shall always remember him as a thorough person. He treated this House with respect, and he did not rise here and regale us with absurdities. At all times he respected the dignity of this House by making substantial contributions here. We shall remember him for what he did for us. He was really an old stalwart, and participated in a wide range of subjects. A while ago mention was made of how the hon. member for Durban Point, in the present situation of the Opposition, is the shadow Minister of a great many portfolios. In his time the hon. member for Gezina has taken an intense interest in various departments and portfolios. When I was still associated with the Department of Coloured Affairs, and with other departments, he was also one of the zealous contributors. Therefore I want to tell him that we will miss him in this House. His contributions were valuable, and we will remember those contributions as being among the good contributions that have been made in this House. Since he is now being called upon by the Government to serve his country in another context, in the extremely important sphere of the promotion of sound ethnic relations, I should like to wish him and his friendly wife everything of the best. As we know them, we are convinced that they will, in that capacity as well, be a great asset and also a great credit to the country. I hope that it will go well with them.

I now want to return to the debate which has been conducted for the past few days, and in the first place express my appreciation for the positive contributions which were made by my side of the House. These contributions were very valuable …

What about the other side?

Yes, a few positive contributions were also made by the other side of the House, and I shall refer subsequently to a few suggestions which came from that side. In the main, the positive contributions were made by this side of the House, and for that I want to express my special appreciation. From the opposite side of the House we had a variety of contributions. We had contributions which also contained sound suggestions, but in general those contributions were characterized by a number of negative and petty matters which varied from letters that had allegedly been opened, while nobody knew anything about them, to the Bantu reporter a matter which was raised here and to which I shall refer in a moment. These matters could certainly be dealt with by the department, and one does not really expect this in a debate of this nature. However I shall presently refer to that matter in detail.

I begin with the first speaker on the Opposition side of this House, the hon. member for Wynberg. I do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg is the shadow Deputy Minister, but the United Party will probably be able to iron out the matter of what the hon. member’s portfolio is in due course. In the meantime, however, I want to begin with him as the first hon. member who made a contribution to this debate.

Are you first-class Minister of Labour and second-class Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, or vice versa?

As any person stands on two legs, I also stand on two legs. The one leg is Labour and the other is Posts. In this way I make my way through the world, and feel happy. The hon. member for Wynberg referred once again to the question of the payment for services rendered to other Government departments. I do not consider it necessary to refer again to the Post Office Re-adjustment Act, for one should really see this matter in the spirit of the intention behind that legislation. This reciprocal rendering of service between the Post Office and other Government departments is in fact intrinsic to our entire State philosophy and Public Administration, in so far that we consider the Post Office to be part of the State as a whole. As such it is not our task to try to make a profit from any Government department. We render services to them as they do to us, and these are calculated as accurately as our system allows. In the main, however, we do not seek, and it is not our object, to make profits from any of the Government departments, for, after all, who are the people who have to benefit from those Government departments? It is only the public as a whole, even if it is in another context. Therefore, of what avail is it to cut a piece off on the one side and fasten it to the other side? Surely the State is one big family, and just as hon. members do not want their children to make profits from one another, so we dare not allow Government departments to do so.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? The point is not that …

Order! The hon. member must put a question.

If the Post Office were to render the services at cost, and not at a profit, would the amount payable by the departments to the Post Office not be considerably greater?

The basis of the underlying arrangement is that the services are rendered at cost; at least they are not being rendered as a favour or as a gift. I just want to say that it is not a cost-plus payment. It is in fact being calculated on a cost basis. I am thinking for example of the contributions which we have to make in regard to television. It has in fact been carefully calculated what it would cost the Post Office to make the channels available for television. That decision was taken on the basis of the costs involved.

The hon. member pleaded once again for concessions to old-age pensioners. He proposed that we should, if need be, set an age determination of 70 years. This is probably the most unpopular matter I have to deal with in my portfolio. It is certainly not popular to tell the aged that we cannot help them. In fact it is, from a popularity point of view, far better to allow a reduction here and there, but unfortunately the same considerations which I stated yesterday apply in this case as well. If we set an age determination of 70 or 71, we still have to apply that determination throughout to all other contiguous cases. The implementation of this matter still remains a problem to us. There is probably no doubt that the computer will be able to separate out the 70-year-olds for us, but we shall have to allow this to be applied throughout to all contiguous cases. I am sorry, but with the best will in the world, the Post Office cannot do this. If a concession has to be made to these people, I really think that the hon. member ought to advance his plea under the main Budget, when we are dealing with social pensions. He ought then to advance his plea to the Minister of Finance, so that that Minister can make a payment to the Post Office enabling it to accommodate this large group, however that group may be defined. The Post Office, being a business organization, is not geared to doing this, apart from the fact that we find it so difficult to implement the matter. However, I leave it to the hon. member; if this matter has to be taken further, I want to suggest that he makes this plea to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the replacement of cables. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the replacement and the laying of cables is indeed being done completely according to plan. The hon. member for Durbanville also referred to this. It is being done according to plan, but now it has to be done according to priorities. We have priorities in respect of the construction of post office buildings, the laying of cables and the building of exchanges. Without a pattern of priorities no major administration, such as ours, can function properly. For that reason one must, with a view to one’s finances and one’s available manpower, maintain that pattern of priorities. However, I want to give the assurance that cables are not being laid unsystematically; it is in fact being done according to a planned system. Since the hon. member is the deputy shadow Minister, I assume that he will, as time goes by, liaise to a greater extent with the department and hold talks with its officials, thus enabling himself to become conversant with that very plan of action which is being carried out by the department.

The question of postal deliveries was also raised. It is true that the postal division of any department of posts throughout the world is operated at a loss. Therefore this is not only the case in our country. It is common cause that nowhere in the world is a postal delivery service profitable. Nevertheless, we must continue to render this service. In this regard I want to point out that there has in fact been a decrease in the number of deliveries per day. I saw statistics recently which indicated that in London and in other cities of the world this service had been curtailed to one delivery a day. Even in such a progressive country as the United States this service has also been curtailed. There is nothing unusual about those services being curtailed in those countries.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred here to two letters which he had received. Those two letters had apparently been posted a long time ago. In this regard I want to say the following: This Parliament is available for the discussion of any matter, but in complimenting the hon. member for Gezina a moment ago on his having at all times taken into consideration the dignity of this House and always having made his contributions at that level, I really thought that one should also take that into consideration in regard to the subjects which have to be raised here. These are all matters which could be dealt with departmentally. If a letter was posted and arrived at its destination in 10 days’ time, it is not a matter which one need raise in the Parliament of one’s country. Do we not have sufficient respect for this place and the dignity and importance of this institution to refrain from discussing the question of a letter which was ten or 14 days late in the Parliament of our country? All the departmental channels are open. It is therefore not a question of hon. members not having access to my department or to me. All these channels are open to hon. members and anyone else in South Africa to bring these matters to our attention properly.

Two in the same month?

That is true, but it still remains a matter which I think should have been disposed of departmentally. I think that to make this the subject of discussion in a Budget debate is, to say the least, quite inappropriate.

I used this as an example.

We did not even receive a complaint in this regard. Let us receive a complaint and then investigate it, instead of trying to make a drama of the matter here.

The letter was delivered today.

Yes, that is correct, but it still remains a matter which I think is inappropriate as a point of discussion during a Budget debate.

But this is only an example.

These are trifling matters which could have been dealt with departmentally.

Is the Post Office royal game now?

No, the Minister is royal game.

Hon. members are talking about royal game now. The Parliament is a place where one should act with great responsibility. There is also the example which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South gave us yesterday in regard to the two letters which had allegedly been posted in London and incorrectly delivered here. He wanted to create the impression that there was something sinister behind this.

Again you misread the facts. Who are you hiding?

To discuss such matters is in fact to abuse this Parliament and the platform which it offers.

Who are you hiding? Who are you protecting? There should have been a prosecution.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to a number of matters.

†He referred to the Bantu reporter who was reported to the Police because he spoke excellent English. First of all, I have no knowledge of this incident but it is not departmental policy nor is it our custom to react in such a way. If the report is true, then it must, of course, be seen as an extreme exception of which neither I nor my department approves. This is certainly a case that can be investigated. In this case too I must say that I doubt whether this is the correct place to raise a matter of this nature. However, if the Opposition has nothing else to attack the Government on, then it might need to raise points of this nature.

You have not bothered to investigate it.

The hon. member also made a number of suggestions which we were very pleased to receive. I shall welcome it if more hon. members on the Opposition side will in the future take advantage of the opportunity to make suggestions. The hon. member spoke about the coding of letters and the incentive in this regard. This is something which might become possible in future when we have the addressographs and other machines that will be able to handle this matter. In connection with the question of an incentive for the sender for bulk posting and for addressing and sorting the mail in advance, I can only draw attention to the fact that we have, of course, given a 5% reduction in postage for this service. Whether something more can be done, is a matter that can be considered.

But not for sorting.

As far as bulk posting is concerned, the hon. member also made a plea for a greater incentive. As far as concessions are concerned, I should point out perhaps that senders do get a concession for pre-sorting mail. In respect of 10 000 or more, the concession is 20%, and if the number is less than 10 000 the concession is 10%. I think that is quite a considerable concession. One can always consider the question of increasing it, but what I have said shows we are moving in that direction.

The other suggestion which the hon. member made was in connection with the differentiation in tariffs between surface mail and air mail. The question of sending all away-mail by air and levying a common tariff for such mail has been under study for quite a while. I would like to give the hon. member the assurance that we are going into this matter. Perhaps in the next Budget debate we will be able to make a statement in this regard. I may add that the “all up”, as it is known in Post Office jargon, is something which might be feasible in the future. It is a matter that we will go into.

*Sir, the question of financing was raised here. In fact, the Opposition went out of its way in this debate to criticize our system of Post Office financing. At times they came to light with fallacious arguments. Hon. members referred to the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee, and the hon. member for Wynberg said that the Franzsen Committe had already commenced its investigations 15 years ago. I think that for the sake of the record it would perhaps be a good thing if I were just to point out that the Franzsen Committee was appointed on 2 December 1971 by me as Minister. Serving on it was Dr. Franzsen, as chairman. Mr. Browne, the Secretary for Finance, the Postmaster-General and Mr. Campbell Pitt, whom I appointed as representative of the private sector. They then made recommendations on the basis of financing for the Post Office, precisely because the Post Office was having such a struggle to find capital to implement its major telecommunications programme. It was felt that we really did not have sufficient space in which to realize ourselves. The committee submitted its report on 6 March 1972. Subsequently I submitted it to the Cabinet and the Cabinet accepted the Franzsen report in its entirety. When I introduced the Budget here on 22 March 1972, I announced the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee for the first time here in the House of Assembly and embodied them in that Budget, as they have since then been embodied in every subsequent Budget. I really hope that this statement of the facts will put an end to this 15-year-story. As regards the retention of this rational and brand new formula of the Franzsen Committee, it is perhaps a good thing just to refer in this context to the opinion of a person who is not really regarded as being a friend of the Government at all times, or is not always full of praise for the Government, on the significance of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee. I am mentioning this particularly in view of the United Party’s plea during this session that we should now throw this overboard and that I should not become hidebound by these brand new recommendations of three years ago. Therefore it is perhaps interesting to listen to what a spokesman of the Financial Mail, a publication which is not generous in its praise of the National Party Government, has to say in this edition of 27 March 1972, as follows—

That is how the Financial Mail saw the matter three years ago. In this respect I think that they adopted a sound view, for the formula which was then devised, and its application, to which I am going to refer in a moment with reference to the complaint of the hon. member for Durban Point, is proving extremely successful—so much so that the Post Office has no reason to deviate from this course it has adopted. This formula certainly meets the principal requirements of financing. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to deviate from it.

But I come now to the complaint made by the hon. member for Durban Point, namely that the financing from revenue would amount to 55% for the coming year, and that I had omitted to furnish proper data. For that reason I should now like to give you the facts. In view of the elucidation of the Franzsen Committee as well as its formula for depreciation, which hon. members can also of course find in this same Hansard of 1972,—the position was stated very clearly there—I want to set out for the hon. member what the position for the present is. If we deduct the deficit with which we began the financial year, i.e. the financial year which is now coming to an end, namely R6,52 million, from the operating surplus of the coming year, namely R47 478, it gives us a surplus for application for capital purposes of R40,726 million.

But why does it have to be deducted?

Surely this was a loss which we suffered. Surely we do not have the money now. Where else should it come from? We are budgeting for a deficit, of R13 million for the coming year, up to the end of the financial year, and this amount we are able to borrow from outside sources. We have the facilities for borrowing this, as you know, Sir. We did this three years ago, and we could also borrow this R13 million overseas. If we borrow this R13 million overseas we would have to pay a high interest rate on it. Instead of borrowing it overseas, we are now using the floating money which is after all in the Post Office every day. This amount, which we could have borrowed from outside sources, is not our money, but the public’s money, money paid by the public for postal orders, or for any other service which they are going to receive tomorrow or the day after. This is not therefore the Post Office’s money. But now we are using that money for this short period. However, it remains loan money, borrowed money. If we include this floating money which is in transito, the effect is that as far as loans are concerned, we are going to ask the Treasury for R40 million. We hope the Savings Bank will be able to contribute R30 million. The other loans will amount to R24.5 million, and the floating money, R13 million. All these amounts will total R 107,5 million. On internal funds the surplus will amount to R40,726 million. The depreciation amounts to R64,743 million. The latter two amounts collectively total R 105,469 million—let us say R 105,5 million. What all this amounts to is that as far as loans are concerned, that R107,5 million is the equivalent of 50,47%. From internal funds the amount of R105,5 million is the equivalent of 49,53%. This is the percentage ratio on which we are working.

Why is the amount of R6,7 million being deducted twice? Surely that gives R13 million.

It is not being deducted twice. At the beginning of the financial year we had a deficit of approximately R6,5 million and the financial year closed with a deficit of approximately R6,5 million. Twice R6,5 million is R13 million. That is what it amounts to.

But it has been deducted twice.

No, it has not been deducted twice. We then began with a deficit and at the end of the financial year ended with a deficit of approximately R6,5 million. It is really inappropriate to do std. 3 sums when a person has to reply to a Budget debate of this nature.

Order! I must point out to the hon. the Minister that his time has almost expired.

During the course of this debate quite a number of references were also made to telephones. It is a pity the Opposition used this debate to draw attention to the backlog in this regard. There should, if we had maintained our perspective, also have been a fair evaluation of the 123 000 telephones which had been installed. As the hon. member for Durban North made very clear, the backlog in proportion to the number of telephones which we have at present is such that we actually find ourselves in a more favourable position today than during the past six years. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The first clause of this Bill has as its aim the rectification of the designation of the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations in the Group Areas Act.

In the second clause a restriction against alienation or hypothecation in the title deed conditions of properties situate in a group area is removed in order to eliminate certain anomalies. Section 27(l)(d) of the Group Areas Act provides that from the date on which an area is declared a group area for a certain race, any provision in the title deed of any immovable property situate in that area prohibiting or restricting the acquisition of such property by persons who are members of the group for which that area has been established, falls away. In the Province of Natal it was customary to include in title deeds conditions forbidding alienation and hypothecation of the property to members of a certain race. A case from Isipingo, which is a group area for Indians, can be mentioned as an illustration. The title deeds of the properties in this area contain a condition that provides that the properties may not be alienated or hypothecated to a person of Asiatic descent. The Chief Registrar of Title Deeds is of the opinion that the said provision in the Group Areas Act does not remove a restriction on alienation and hypothecation and therefore the amendment is proposed in order to eliminate any doubt that may exist.

The third clause provides for an increase in the number of members of the Committee mentioned in section 29 of the Group Areas Act, which investigates the desirability of establishing local governments for Coloureds and Indians. The present section 29(2)(a) is designed for the circumstances that existed before the Coloured Person’s Representative Council was instituted. Since the said Council came into being it has been policy to consult the Council and its Executive more and more and to involve them in all matters in which they have jurisdiction or are interested, in so far as the Coloured community is concerned. Section 17(6)(a) of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, 1964, delegates, inter alia, the furtherance of local government matters, specifically to the Council and its Executive. It is therefore necessary that the Executive concerned should also have direct representation on the Committee by appointing two of their members to it. Further it is regarded as desirable that the local Coloured communities should also be represented in the committee through their Management Committees. In metropolitan areas such as the Cape Peninsula where various management Committees function under various local authorities (for example the Municipality of Cape Town and the Divisional Council) it may be necessary to nominate more than one representative. For this purpose two representatives are envisaged. Previous investigations in the field of local self-government and especially the report of the Botha Committee have indicated that the inception of an independent local management body contains certain legal implications which will have to be thoroughly scrutinized and which may result in certain adaptations. It is therefore essential that a legal adviser should serve on this committee to go into this particular aspect and where necessary to help with the formulation of suitable legal amendments.

One of the underlying problems in the realization of self-government in Coloured areas which requires a thorough study, is the financial aspect. The matter is complicated by nature because of the intertwining of the interests of Coloured and White areas, and new formulae of granting aid will have to be found. For this purpose it is advisable that an expert in the field of municipal finances should be appointed to the committee. In exceptional cases the need may arise to nominate another additional member. Together with the three members referred to in section 29(2)(a) the total arrived is ten.

Mr. Speaker, the first two clauses of the Bill have been explained by the hon. the Minister. There is no point I wish to raise in regard to those two clauses. I have however, certain comments to make on clause 3. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, the power to control local authorities was vested in the Coloured Representative Council as long ago as 1964. It has taken some 11 years for meaningful steps to be taken by the Government so that the CRC could have representation on this investigatory committee.

According to laws we have at the present time, there are three stages in dealing with the establishment of a Coloured or Indian local authority. Firstly there is the establishment of the consultative committee which merely has the function of being at the receiving end of consultation with the local authority in the area in which it exists.

Secondly, there is provision for a management committee which, although it has more powers, is still subservient to the existing local authority. The third or next intermediate stage consists of the activities of this committee as expounded in section 29(2)(a) of the Act. I want to say at once that I welcome the explanation the hon. the Minister has given about the more precise composition of this committee. We have had this legislation, for a number of year, in which it is merely provided that there should be not more than five members. The only way the hon. the Minister was bound in making the appointments was that one member should represent the province and one should represent the local authority concerned. It has taken a long time for this committee to be re-established, as I have said. I would have liked to have seen the hon. the Minister enshrine in the Bill itself, and in the Act as a consequence, how the committee should be constituted. He has explained to us his intentions on the constitution of the committee. He has mentioned representation of local authorities, representation of the CRC and representation of a knowledgeable municipal official. I now see the hon. Leader of the House looking at me.

I am listening to you.

Yes, I now want him to listen to this. Quite some time ago the hon. Leader of the House made a prophecy as to when all Coloured group areas would be under the control of Coloured councils. He was a long way off. The time has lapsed. There are very few areas that are under properly established Coloured local authorities. One therefore welcomes this step 11 years after the powers were granted to see that some active investigation is carried out. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he would not charge a committee to investigate another matter in this regard. There have been a number of committees appointed, one for the Cape Province and one for the province of Natal. They have been appointed to carry out investigations that a committee under section 29(2)(a) should do, i.e. to investigate the feasibility of the establishment of a local authority for Coloured or Indian persons. I believe that one of the major problems they come up against—and the hon. the Minister has referred to this—is the financial aspect of the matter. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not now realize that the time has come for this committee to investigate in principle and indepth the necessity for the introduction of some form of umbrella organization to deal with adjacent local authorities which in themselves are looking after the affairs of different racial groups. In other words, has the time not come for the hon. the Minister to investigate the feasibility and practicability of establishing metropolitan authorities using this committee as an overall committee for that purpose. After all, the hon. the Minister does not need me to tell him that a soley residential local authority can never be a viable local authority. Its rates income and other factors would be such that it could never function. If there are to be large areas which are solely residential areas, they must in some way be incorporated in the benefits of the adjacent industrial and business areas which they themselves serve and in which they are involved. I believe that is a matter the hon. the Minister could well refer to this committee for investigation. This is a matter needing urgent attention. One has the tendency to call these bodies local authorities and management committees when, in effect, they cannot properly discharge the duties or exercise the powers of a local authority or a management committee because of their non-viability. I need only refer the hon. the Minister to two reports of two investigations which were held in the Cape Province not so long ago. I refer to the investigations of the Rossouw Commission and the Slater Commission. I do believe that it would help considerably in the development of the proper type of community life for our people if the committee which is provided for by section 29(2)(a) of the principal Act, and which is enlarged by clause 3 of this Bill, could investigate this wider aspect of the matter and could take positive action to implement the undertakings given by the hon. Leader of the House some 12 years ago, or at least to make some contribution to the fulfilment of the hopes expressed by him at that stage.

Mr. Speaker, we of the Reform Party support this Bill before the House. We think that it only goes a very small way towards redressing the grave injustices which exist under the Group Areas Act, but it is an improvement and therefore it must be welcomed. I want to refer to a fact which the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Green Point, mentioned and that is that the situation still exists, particularly in Cape Town, where there are many people who do not qualify to be on the voters’ roll for municipal elections, but who in fact live in areas where they cannot be represented by their own representative, because …

It is untrue.

It does happen. How are you going to …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

The situation is, and this is particularly the case in Cape Town, that you do have communities who live in and amongst the White community. These people do not have any form of representation at all. Whilst the hon. the Minister is bringing forward an amending Bill dealing with problems which do exist in this respect, I wonder whether he could not give some consideration to this particular aspect as well.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to convey my thanks to hon. members for their support of this Bill. There is no difference of opinion about the need for the enlargement of the investigation committee. I think we are all agreed on that score. We also agree that this is a step in the right direction in the sense that we are involving the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the local Coloured community, too, in the investigation committee which, is to investigate the establishment of a local management. The fact of the matter is, of course, that this part of the work is done by the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. It is his prerogative to appoint this committee and, after receiving the report of the committee, to take the necessary steps in pursuance of the report he has received. I am sure that the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point will in fact be given due consideration by such committee. The establishment of a local management without additional financial resources will certainly not get that local management off the ground. It is my opinion that in most Coloured towns the existing buildings are too few to provide the local management with adequate funds, on the basis of a fair valuation and a fair tax. The industrial area usually falls within the area of jurisdiction of the White city council. In my opinion there is not the slightest doubt that due consideration will have to be given to the financial aspect. That is why, in addition to the representatives of the CRC and the representative of the local Coloureds as well as the other representatives, someone with financial knowledge who will be able to advise the committee will have to be appointed to the committee. Part of the committee’s report to the Minister will probably contain recommendations in regard to this cardinal aspect of the establishment of local Coloured or Indian self-government bodies.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

With this short Amendment Bill two small amendments are being envisaged to the National Institute for Metallurgy Act, 1965 (Act No. 90 of 1965). The first relates to the alteration of the Afrikaans designation of the Institute, and also entails that the title of the Act has to be amended. The second amendment seeks to authorize the institute to grant undergraduate bursaries to prospective university students.

As the Act reads at present, the Institute is called in Afrikaans the “Nasionale Metallurgiese Instituut”, while the English designation is the National Institute for Metallurgy. The English designation has given rise to the Institute being referred to in general as NIM. In Afrikaans as well, the Institute, for the sake of convenience is referred to in common parlance as “NIM”, and I am certain that hon. members on both sides of the House are already acquainted with this abbreviation or acronym. The designation “Nasionale Institute vir Metallurgic” will be better adapted to the English designation, and this amendment is also being considered necessary for the sake of uniformity. I have ascertained that from a philological point of view there is no objection to the designation “Nasionale Institute vir Metallurgie”, which gives the abbreviation “NIM” in Afrikaans as well.

The change of name, as is being proposed, will necessitate the short and long titles of the Act having to be amended to refer to the “Nasionale Instituut vir Metallurgie” instead of the “Nasionale Metallurgiese Instituut”.

The other amendment, which is in fact the most important one, arises out of the serious shortage of manpower in the metallurgical industry. I have frequently discussed this shortage and the detrimental effect it is having on the mining industry in this country, both in as well as outside this House, and therefore I probably need not elaborate on this again today. In a recent debate a number of the hon. members of the Opposition also referred to this aspect. NIM should like to be of assistance in this regard by granting undergraduate bursaries in order to attract young men and encourage them to take up metallurgy as a career. Unfortunately, however, it is a fact that the present provisions of the Act only allow the granting of post-graduate busaries.

The control board of the Institute has consequently recommended that this undesirable position be rectified by way of a statutory amendment. This recommendation is most strongly supported, and clause 3 of the Bill rectifies this matter. As will be seen, the existing requirement concerning research bursaries and grants-in-aid, i.e. that the Minister of Mines shall approve grants in consultation with the Minister of Finance, is also being made applicable to the anticipated undergraduate bursaries. I may mention that for the 1974-’75 financial year an amount of R90 000 is being placed at the disposal of NIM for bursary grants, and that the Institute envisages granting undergraduate bursaries annually to no fewer than five students. Bursary holders are required to work for NIM for one year for each year of the duration of the bursary. The additional manpower which will be made available to the metallurgical industry in this way, an industry which is so absolutely essential and vital to South Africa, is only a drop in the ocean, but at least it does help, and I have every confidence that sufficient interest will gradually be aroused in this important sphere of employment, which is of such great importance to our mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, we only have two points of comment in regard to this proposed statutory amendment. In the first place, of course, we welcome the amendment which is being inserted in the principal Act by clause 2. On a previous occasion—the discussion of a private motion on the promotion of metallurgy and geology in South Africa— we paid tribute to the work which, is being done by this institute. It is an excellent institute with an international reputation, and I am in full agreement with the motives given to us by the hon. the Minister for bringing the Afrikaans designation into line with the present English designation, the sobriquet, I could almost call it, of NIM.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to subsection (2) of the proposed new section 2. This subsection provides—

We know of course that the present institution in Johannesburg is far too small for its purpose. We also know that there are tremendous expansions in progress in this regard. I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether these expansions are in fact associated with this envisaged move to Randburg, and not with another further move to another place We should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could enlighten us in regard to this matter.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, we support the intention of the hon. the Minister to render assistance and to effect improvements in regard to research bursaries, grants-in-aid, etc. During a recent debate, however, I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that the kind of assistance which is being rendered at present, is extremely limited owing to the lack of research facilities at the universities. The work which NIM is doing depends partially on the assistance and the co-operation which can be obtained from the universities. Unless the universities are able to offer the metallurgical students, research workers, etc., the necessary facilities, it is of no use whatever appropriating money unless the postgraduate students and research workers do in fact have the opportunity of doing more advanced work, which can only be done in the laboratories of the universities. That co-operation between the institute and the universities is of the utmost importance. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence so that where financial assistance is being rendered to universities, provision will also in fact be made for the necessary money for the expansion of the metallurgical facilities at the university concerned.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this legislation, and shall support the Second Reading.

Sir, knowing that metallurgy is in fact one of the main pillars of the South African economy and always has been, it is rather surprising, when one makes an assessment of what the investment has been in research and educational facilities as far as metallurgy is concerned in South Africa, to see to what extent it has been inadequate up to now. Sir, mining and metallurgy—mining in the first place to bring the ores to the surface, and metallurgy to beneficiate the ores and to extract the metals concerned—have been the basis of our primary industry in the years during which South Africa has been a developing industrial country, and the production of goods and articles from metal is the mainstay today of our secondary and tertiary industries. For that reason I would like to associate myself with the remark made by the previous speaker that very much more in the way of funds should be made available not only to the universities at which metallurgy is studied, but also to those organizations where metallurgical research and development take place. I believe that having regard to the future industrial demands of South Africa, the funds that are being made available at the moment will have to be increased considerably, not just by a small percentage in order to make it adequate for the needs of the country. Sir, if you look at the metallurgical industry in South Africa, you will find that probably something like 90% to 95% of the positions which should be filled by metallurigcal engineers are filled by people who are not fully qualified metallurgists or metallurigical engineers. This is a most unfortunate situation. Much of the research that is taking place in the metallurgical field is not being carried out by mettallurgists as such, but by people with other disciplines who are operating in that particular field. This is unfortunate because the job can obviously best be done both in the research field and in the industrial field by qualified metallurgists, the people who have the correct basic training. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just one further point. In the hon. the Minister’s reply to a question which appeared on the Order Paper on Tuesday, 18 March this year, an indication was given that no money had been made available by the Government for post-graduate bursaries or for grants-in-aid for research to students other than White students in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974. The point I want to make is a very simple one, Sir. If the homelands are to be given a viable economic foundation, if there is to be any permanent viability in terms of industrial activities in the homelands involving mining and metallurgy, then the Government should make an early start in training people who can enter those industries and provide guidance and leadership and management. I believe that it is most unfortunate that in this day and age, when we need rapid development of these industries in the homelands, there are still no trained Blacks in South Africa who can enter that field. I am not referring just to the mining and metallurgical industry in the primary sense. I am referring to the metallurgical industry in terms of the manufacture of motor-cars and the manufacture of refrigerators and to the hundred and one other primary, secondary and tertiary industries which the Government will have to develop in the homelands if those homelands are to have any viability at all. If we are sincere in saying that we wish to do something economically for the Coloureds and Indians in South Africa, then we must also make facilities available for them to be able to study in the industrial field and to be able to enter the industries of South Africa where higher incomes leading to higher standards of living will be available to them. Therefore, Sir, I believe that in terms of the legislation now before the House, it is correct that we should make an appeal to the Government that in future it should provide undergraduate bursaries, post-graduate bursaries, and grants-in-aid for research, to White, Black, Coloured and Indian at our universities, where these facilities are available, and in the research institutes of South Africa. Only in that way can we show sincerely that we wish the other races of South Africa to participate on a fair and just basis also in the industrial life of South Africa.

I want to convey my thanks to the Opposition parties for their support of this Bill, and assure them that it is very highly appreciated. I want to reply briefly to the questions which were put to me. To the hon. member for Von Brandis I want to say that this expansion is associated only with the moving of the head office from Johannesburg to Randburg, and nothing else. Then, in regard to the appeal which he made to me in regard to the co-operation which must exist between the National Institute for Metallurgy and the universities, and that we should help them to obtain more funds because this is so important, I want to tell the hon. member that I am so much in agreement with him that there is no matter in regard to which I have approached the Treasury so many times for greater assistance than in regard to this matter of the National Institute for Metallurgy, as well as for increased financial assistance to the universities. I can give him that assurance. I have on various occasions paid personal visits to the University of the Witwatersrand and to NIM. It is very interesting to go there. I wish more members would make use of the opportunity to go and see what is happening there so that we could in this way achieve a better insight into one of our most important enterprises in this country, and in this way, too, encourage our children to take a greater interest in it. I can give the hon. member the assurance that as a result—I say this humbly—of my personal mediation and interest in this matter, with the assistance of Dr. Robinson, and others such as Dr. Roux, there was last year a reasonably considerable increase in the number of students at Wits, for example, and also at other universities where they are able to study metallurgy. This is very gratifying. Matters look very promising for 1975. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the co-operation between NIM, the universities and myself in this regard is of the utmost cordiality. Lastly I want to tell the hon. member that in respect of this matter we have done more than the hon. member asked me to do, which is that I have, for a considerable time, been engaged in negotiating with the departments concerned not only to expand to the existing facilities for metallurgy at the existing universities and to appropriating additional funds, but also to see whether the time is not ripe for the establishment of metallurgical departments at other universities as well. These negotiations have reached an advanced stage, and we are now working out the financial aspects of this, in co-operation with the bodies concerned.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity —and I hope that cognisance will be taken of this—to say something about bursaries. The number of bursaries which have now been made available by NIM under the existing Act, i.e. for post-graduate students, are 26 in 1972, to the amount of R47 000; 30 in 1973, to the amount of R60 000; and 34 in 1974, to the amount of R97 000. This was prior to the amendment which we effected here this afternoon, in terms of which we will also be able to make bursaries available to undergraduate students. But the point I want to make is that under the old Act, under the A scheme, i.e. for hand-picked students, who are required to work for three years, 19 bursaries have been granted at an average of R5 216 per annum. This is a very considerable bursary, and one is not always able to understand why our young people do not come forward and take an interest in this matter. Under the B scheme, in terms of which there is no obligation to work for the institute, but where a special research task is given to each bursary holder, the results of which he may utilize for his thesis, 15 bursaries have been granted at an average of R2 490 per annum per bursary. These are therefore very considerable bursaries which have been granted for this purpose. In aggregate, therefore, 34 bursaries have been granted at an average of R4 014 per annum. And then, lastly, in regard to this matter— it is now being contemplated, after this Act has been amended, to grant, as far as these undergraduate bursaries are concerned, five bursaries for the first five years at R1 000 each, i.e. R5 000; in the second year ten bursaries at R1 000; in the third year five bursaries at R1 000 each; in the fourth year 20 bursaries at R1000 each; and subsequently 20 bursaries at R1000 each. The undergraduate bursaries entail an obligation to work for three years, i.e., after the bursary holders have obtained their degrees.

With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Bryanston about non-Whites, just the following: I have stated in reply to a question by the hon. member for Yeoville that no bursaries have been granted to non-Whites, but I want to avail myself of this opportunity to furnish additional facts in this regard because it emphasizes a very important facet. Prior to the passing of this legislation NIM was not in a position to grant undergraduate bursaries. There were only two applications from Blacks, but both applications were in fact for undergraduate bursaries, which we were not in a position to grant. NIM has therefore in reality received no applications from non-Whites for post-graduate bursaries. There were two applications from Indians for bursaries for post-graduate study in engineering; but those applications had to be referred to other bodies because NIM has nothing to do with civil engineering.

The object of the amendment which is now being proposed is that it will also be possible to grant undergraduate bursaries. I readily agree with the hon. member that there are some of the Bantu homelands that have considerable mineral deposits which will have to be exploited as rapidly as possible, and for that purpose we shall need trained people. If applications for bursaries for undergraduate study are received, it is quite possible that such applications could be considered, for a non-White student may study in that direction at the University of the Witwatersrand. However, an aspect which will be of great importance in this regard is that it is of no avail granting such a bursary if that person, after having completed his studies, cannot be placed in a suitable post. This is an aspect to which we shall devote careful attention. I want to give the assurance that if such an application were received and the applicant con’d be placed in a post in the homelands or elsewhere in South Africa, where his services could be usefully applied, the granting of such bursaries to such persons will be considered with great sympathy. I hope that I have, with this, replied to the hon. members’ questions.

In what way is the availability of bursaries made public? It seems to me that people are not aware of them.

I am pleased the hon. member for Carletonville has asked that question, because it is an important one. The position is that NIM has a mobile unit which travels throughout the country and at schools, etc., informs the children of the possibilities in this regard. This is also publicized over the radio and in the Press in the normal manner, in the same way as other bursaries are also advertised. As it happens in general there are many bursaries available in South Africa which are publicized in this normal manner, but in which the necessary interest is not displayed. Everything is being done to publicize the bursaries as widely as possible. I think that after my explanation this afternoon members of the House of Assembly will also help to publicize these bursaries and perhaps this will contribute to there being greater interest in future.

If bursaries are granted, and provided non-White students study metallurgy, will the Government give them the right to gain experience in the laboratories of industries in White areas? This is a very important principle …

Order! The hon. member may only put a question.

My question is this: Will the Government afford them the opportunity of gaining the necessary practical experience in the White areas in the laboratories of research bodies and industries to enable then to apply the experience in the homelands?

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that if NIM were to receive such an application from a student, it would be considered sympathetically, for the necessary facilities to receive instruction in that direction already exist at our universities. Therefore there is no problem in that regard. Where the problem really lies, as I have already said, is that one has to ensure that one can offer that person a good post in the homelands, otherwise one has to place him in a position which is unsatisfactory and unfair. NIM has discussed this matter with me at length. They are sympathetic and I am sympathetic and the country needs these people. The homelands also need these people, but we cannot rush in precipitately. We must act realistically in this respect. To date we have received no applications from any non-White which could be considered. If we were to receive one, we would be able to take this action in respect of it. The hon. member has asked me now whether, if such an application were to be made, we would allow such a person to work in the laboratory of an industry in the private sector. I do not have the final say in that regard. If we look at this matter realistically, as I told the hon. member we would do if we received applications, then it would depend on whether that industry has an opening or on whether that industry is able to offer the necessary facilities, and whether the laboratory has an opening for such a person, etc. This is in fact the kind of matter to which NIM would have to give urgent attention, if it were to receive such an application. I shall tell them that this is how they should deal with the matter and that they should prove to me that such a person is not going to be led into a blind alley, so that he can subsequently turn around and say that we had deceived him. You know what will follow from that: Only that which causes bad relations. If they can convince me that it will be possible for such a person to be employed in such a laboratory and that he can be accommodated, then we shall consider this matter very sympathetically. However, there must be no doubt about one thing, namely that this country needs these people for the homelands and for other circumstances. We do not want to discourage this, we want to encourage it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention that the words “research” is spelt “reserach in line 34.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The objects of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, which was placed on the Statute Book in 1968, have for the most part been achieved, but it has nevertheless become necessary to effect a few minor changes in the Act, in order to rectify troublesome deficiencies which have come to light. It is a well-known fact that this short, but important, measure was approved with the full support of the opposite side of the House at that time, and we can be very proud today of what has been achieved by this legislation, for not only have quite a number of our gold mines, which had been eking out a bare existence on account of the fixed gold price, been saved from certain disaster because of the timeous assistance they received from this Government, but these same mines are responsible for a considerable percentage of our gold production today and are at present, together with the other wealthier gold mines, lending tremendous impetus to our economy.

In order to present hon. members with the present picture in regard to the question of State assistance for the mines in question, I may mention that while, in respect of the financial year 1971-’72, there were more than 20 mines to which a total amount of more than R16 million was paid in terms of the assistance scheme, we only budgeted for an amount of R2,228 million in respect of the 1974-’75 financial year in the expectation that only about four mines may ask for further assistance despite the higher sold price. Three of the anticipated four mines submitted claims for a total of R1,2 million in State assistance during the 1974-’75 financial year. There has therefore been a considerable decrease in applications for State assistance.

Under the circumstances it might sound strange that we want to amend the Act now that the objects of the Act have been achieved to such a great extent, and the question may well be asked whether the Act should not be repealed now. In this connection, however, I want to say that thorough consideration has been given to this matter, but in view of the world situation in general and the uncertain international monetary position, it is not deemed advisable to repeal the Act at this stage.

It is my considered opinion that, as an alternative, it would be a more sensible approach to declassify as assisted mines those gold mines which are classified as assisted mines under the Act, but in respect of which no further State assistance can any longer be justified because of relevant factors such as the higher gold price, the nature and extent of the ore reserves of the relevant mine, and so on. Herein, Mr. Speaker, lies the first problem because in terms of section 2(5) of the Act, which provides for the declassification of a mine as an assisted gold mine, the relevant mine may only be so declassified if the Government Mining Engineer reports that in his opinion the quantity of gold and/or uranium won or likely to be won from such assisted gold mine is or will be insufficient to warrant such mine continuing to be classified as an assisted gold mine.

†This narrow provision means in effect that those mines which have phased themselves out of State assistance and which are no longer in need of such assistance, cannot, as the law now stands, be declassified as assisted mines. This could naturally also open the door to some of the classified mines following mining practices which would result in marginal profits or working losses, thereby enabling them to claim further State assistance. Another consideration is that it would be rather questionable procedure to grant further State assistance to any mine which has, for all practical purposes, exhausted all ore that could be payable, and then expect of the taxpayer to foot the bill merely to enable such a mine to extract sub-marginal ore.

What we are therefore now doing in clause 1 of the Bill, is to widen the scope of section 2(5) of the Act so that any previously assisted mine could be declassified as an assisted mine if, after having considered all the relevant factors, it is clear that the classification of that mine as an assisted mine was no longer warranted. As hon. members will note from the proposed amendment, we will in this be acting with the usual circumspection in that the Government Mining Engineer will be required to report fully on any particular mine, whereafter the Minister of Mines will only be able to act in consultation with the Minister of Finance and with due regard to any recommendation by the Minning Leases Board which, as is generally known, is a highly responsible statutory body appointed under the Mining Rights Act, 1967.

In dealing briefly with clause 2 of the Bill, I wish to point out that although, with the present fluidity in international conditions, it cannot be said how many— if any—of the previously assisted mines will retain the status of classified mines, it is conceivable that any mine which does retain this classification may, with the present high price of gold on the free market —which makes it possible to exploit lower-grade ore on an economic basis—wish to embark on a major expansion programme. Such a programme could require large capital expenditure and it may result in the mine receiving financial assistance from the State. Some time ago my department faced the possibility of such an application and although the Act in question was neither designed nor intended for State assistance in the case of large expansion programmes by assisted mines, the Government could legally speaking be moving on thin ice if, under the gold mines assistance scheme, it were to disallow deductions for capital expenditure incurred in connection with such an expansion scheme.

In this connection, paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (2) (a) of section 6 of the Act merely stipulates that, in determining the mining profit of an assisted gold mine, no deduction shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred on a project which, in the opinion of the Government Mining Engineer, will not benefit the production of gold or uranium. It goes without saying that in the case of a large expansion programme initiated by any assisted mine, it would hardly be possible to say that the project would not benefit the production of gold or uranium. We are therefore making use of this opportunity to make an addition to paragraph (i) of the proviso referred to, in terms of which deductions by an assisted mine would only be permissible in respect of capital expended on developing any new or additional mining area or for any extension to the existing mine workings if the project had been approved by the Government Mining Engineer. I think that is very fair indeed and I have the support of the responsible bodies in this regard.

*As I have indicated, the few statutory amendments we want to effect here, have a dual purpose, i.e. to exclude from the relevant assistance scheme such classified mines in respect of which no further State assistance could be warranted on logical grounds, and to prevent, in statutory terms any mine or mines which retain the classification of an assisted mine in the interim from acting in such a manner and submitting such claims or claiming such deductions which are in conflict with the objects of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker again I am glad to assure the hon. the Minister that we find the amendment which he proposes, to be reasonable. It is one which was decided upon in consultation with the mining industry for it is known to be generally acceptable to the Chamber of Mines.

I believe that it is commonly agreed that the advances made in the gold mining industry of South Africa have changed the entire picture. The Gold Mines Assistance Act of 1968 was passed at a time when the cost of milling and extracting gold from the ore was rising at a rate which was entirely inconsistent with the fixed price of the product. The time clearly came when it was necessary, with a view to the future, to give some assistance to those mines which had substantial ore bodies or substantial reserves of gold but which were unable in the economic circumstances of the time to operate the mines as payable propositions. That foresight has paid off and South Africa has benefited a great deal by the assistance given to those mines in their hour of need. One would be inclined to assume from the dramatic change in the price of gold that the Gold Mines Assistance Act would hardly be needed, if at all, in the present situation. We are, however, persuaded by the hon. the Minister’s reasoning that instead of merely repealing the Gold Mines Assistance Act it would be more orderly to make some provision for the de-escalation of the kind of assistance that is given and to keep the Act in operation in case there might be some later change in the present situation. We have no quarrel with the provisions of section 2(5) as amended by this Bill. I would, however, ask the hon. the Minister if he will explain why it was also thought necessary to remove the onus from the Government Mining Engineer who was in a position to recommend to the Minister or, in fact, to require of him that he should not act unless a recommendation had been made. To put it more succinctly, the Minister was not entitled to move in terms of the original legislation unless the Government Mining Engineer made a recommendation to him. The Minister may now act suo monu, he may take it upon himself to consult the Government Mining Engineer but he need not necessarily take his advice. I think I have understood this correctly and I would like the hon. the Minister to explain why it is that, in the amendment to subsection (5) the onus has been shifted from the Government Mining Engineer to the Minister.

We agree with the new criteria which have been set. In fact, it is only reasonable that in considering whether or not a mine is entitled to assistance, regard should be had not only to the quantity of gold or uranium which it is able to produce but also to the quantities and grades of the ores being mined and their relation to the quantity of gold produced.

As regards clause 2 of the Bill, again we find nothing unreasonable about this and we shall therefore be happy to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will also support this Bill. In the light of what has been said by the hon. member for Von Brandis I shall be brief.

I think it is important to remember that in effect we really have two gold-mining industries in South Africa at this point in time: We have a marginal one, which is marginal even at the present price of gold, and then we have the other half of the industry which is making very substantial profits because of the much richer grade ore. I hope that the hon. the Minister will in connection with this legislation give us a certain assurance which we would certainly appreciate. The assistance already given has proved to be in the interests of the country and has benefited the country because, whilst the rising price of gold over the past two to three years has kept mines in production, these mines might otherwise have ceased to operate. The whole tenor of this legislation, to which we have no objection whatsoever, is to give powers to the Government Mining Engineer and to the Minister in certain circumstances to take mines out of the category of mines which are classified as requiring assistance. In these circumstances, where we have a volatile price of gold over which we have no control, I would like the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that he himself and that the Government Mining Engineer will also bear in mind that that situation can change very rapidly and that, consequently, the Government will look at this matter from the same point of view as it has done in the past, where reasonable, and on the basis of available evidence. If the price of gold was for instance to drop by 40 dollars, a number of the present gold-mines in this country would be in very serious financial trouble. What is more, such circumstances may prevail either for a comparatively short period of time or for a slightly longer period of time. That is why we are asking the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that this Government will indeed look at the situation from the same point of view as it has done in the past because of the importance of gold to this country. Naturally the gold-mining industry will have no objection to mines which can stand on their own feet ceasing to be assisted, but the obverse side of the coin is naturally that we hope that, while it is not set out in this particular Bill, the Minister will continue to assist those mines when, as a result of the volatile gold price, temporary assistance may be required.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey gratitude and appreciation to hon. members of the Opposition parties for their support of this Bill. It is once again proof of the fact that, as far as the technical matters are concerned which are really in the interests of the country, we usually enjoy the full support of this House. I think this is a splendid gesture and I appreciate it every much indeed.

I should like to inform the House that the assistance which this Government has rendered to marginal mines through the years, amounted to R60 634 million during the period 1968-’75 During this period 717 732.3 kilogram of gold to the value of R992 142 million was produced. During this same period the mines concerned paid an amount of approximately R16 million to the State in mining tax. It is perhaps a good thing on this occasion that this House and the country take note of this fact. If ever there was a sound investment, an investment backed by confidence—at that stage it did not amount to a business transaction; the gold price was very low—it was this one. At that time the Government, with the support of everyone, said that it would assist these gold mines. An amount of R60 million was paid out in respect of this assistance. During the period 1968-’75 the mines produced gold to the value of R992,142 million. To my mind this is an excellent achievement. In this connection an amount of R16 million has accrued to the State in respect of tax alone.

I should like to reply to two questions which have been put to me. If I interpret the question which the hon. member for Von Brandis has put to me correctly, the position, according to my interpretation of the provisions of clause 5, remains the same. This is in any case the intention. The position must remain unchanged, i.e. that the Minister of Mines will not take any action without his being in possession of a report submitted by the Government Mining Engineer. The proposed new subsection (5) reads as follows—

Then it goes further. Whatever the intention may be in a case of this nature, I can give the hon. member for Von Brandis the assurance that no action will be taken by the Minister of Mines—this is the practice as I found it in the department and, as I understand, this has been the practice since the establishment of the Department of Mines—without referring the matter to the Government Mining Engineer or without such a matter being thoroughly investigated. This procedure will be applied in future as well. I can give the hon. member for Von Brandis this assurance.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked me to give him the assurance that against the background of the volatile price of gold which could change very rapidly—it could happen overnight—where reasonable, the Government would continue to assist the marginal mines. Mr. Speaker, I wish to give the hon. member and this House the absolute assurance that it is the intention of the Government to proceed along those lines. That is the reason why I mentioned the figures that I did mention at the beginning of my reply to this debate. I wanted to indicate how profitable it was and how wise that step was. After that experience why should we act in any other way in the future? Therefore I can give the hon. member the absolute assurance that the Government will continue to act along these lines.

*I can also tell the hon. member that I am personally very sensitive about this matter. Last year, even before the commencement of the short session, I was approached by my department and the Government Mining Engineer and asked to introduce this amending Bill. However, at that stage I was afraid that the introduction of such an amending Bill might possibly have the effect of creating uncertainty in the gold mining industry, and that is why I refused to introduce this amending Bill at that stage. I said that we should continue as we had done in the past and even if this were to entail a slight loss—at that stage it seemed as if the amount would be insignificant—it would be better to incur this risk rather than create uncertainty. It was only after a reasonable amount of stability had developed in this matter and after I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the mines concerned and became convinced that it would not have such an effect, that I felt myself at liberty to submit this Bill to this House today. The Bill was introduced late, and the reason for it was that I wanted to hold certain consultations before introducing the Bill here.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 1, which relates to section 2(5) of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, the hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that he does not intend any departure from the old method of consultation with the Government Mining Engineer before he takes the action contemplated in this clause. Sir, in order that the Minister’s assurance should be a valid one, it is also necessary that the Minister should agree that his powers under this clause have been changed, and I am not satisfied that the Minister has accepted that. If one looks at the original Act, one finds that if the Government Mining Engineer reports, the Minister may then notify the currently operating mine that the mine will with effect from a certain date cease to be classified. In other words, he may act if the Government Mining Engineer reports. He cannot act unless the Government Mining Engineer reports. In terms of the amendment, the Minister may now act, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, after considering a report; he may then immediately notify the company after considering a report that from a certain date it will cease to be classified. In other words, he is no longer prohibited from acting unless he has a report to that effect from the Government Mining Engineer. On his own initiative, after consulting the Government Mining Engineer and accepting or rejecting his advice, he may notify the company of his own decision. Sir, there is a shift of emphasis; there is a shift of authority from the Government Mining Engineer, who under the old Act was in a position to notify the Minister or not and thereby inhibit the Minister from acting or not; whereas now the Minister may on his own intiative seek the advice of the Government Mining Engineer and then proceed to notify the mine. Sir, I accept that the hon. the Minister has no intention whatsoever—he has given that assurance— of taking the initiative himself in declaring a certain mine to be disqualified for assistance and that he will certainly take into account the advice of the Government Mining Engineer, who is the person best qualified to judge the situation. But I do feel that the hon. the Minister’s assurance would be more happily accepted if he were also to admit that there is in fact a shift of emphasis in this amendment to the Act. Apart from that, we have no objection to clause 1.

May I say that this is the first word I have heard since the preparation of this Bill that there is a possibility that these words could be interpreted in such a way that there was a change from the original wording to what it is now. Therefore I can again give the hon. member the assurance that there was no intention on the part of the Government or on the part of the Department of Mines, or on the part of the Government Mining Engineer or of myself, that the wording should now mean that the Minister can act without reference to the Mining Engineer. It would be absolutely foolish for a Minister to try to act in such a technical situation without a report from the Mining Engineer at his disposal. I should like to agree with the hon. member, but I find myself in the position where I cannot agree with him because the original wording says that the Minister may if the Government Mining Engineer reports, etc., do certain things, and it now reads that the Minister may do certain things after considering a report by the Government Mining Engineer. This to my way of thinking—and that was certainly also the intention of the department—creates exactly the same position as before, namely that the Minister cannot act unless there is a report by the Government Mining Engineer. The reason why there seems to be this little bit of misunderstanding between the hon. member and myself is that the beginning of the sentence in the original Act is not printed here in the draft Bill. That is why the hon. member does not interpret these words as I understand them.

*Therefore I want to give the hon. member the absolute assurance that this is the position, but I shall go further and take the matter up with the law advisers, after we have piloted this Bill through. If there is in fact a difference, the intention being that there should be no difference whatsoever, I shall effect an amendment in the Other Place to the satisfaction of the hon. member. There is in point of fact no difference of opinion between us, except that I do not think it necessary, while the hon. member does think it necessary, but if the law advisers agree with him, I shall effect the amendment in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill seeks to amend section 46 of the Co-operative Societies Act. This amendment has been necessitated by a difference in the English and Afrikaans versions of the section, a difference which has now come to light.

As hon. members know, this section entitles members of co-operatives to examine and inspect the books of account of their co-operatives. Since co-operatives, as business undertakings, must sometimes prevent confidential matters being made public by members, the Act recognizes the principle that a co-operative may, at a general meeting of members, impose restrictions on the power of members to inspect the books of account. According to the English version, which is the signed version and is therefore decisive, these restrictions apply erroneously to the periods within which the books of account may be inspected by members.

It is therefore being proposed that the section be amended so that a co-operative may, without any doubt, impose reasonable restrictions on the powers of members to inspect books of account.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister tried to create the impression that this amendment Bill is of a very minor nature, and that no fundamental changes are in fact being made. However, I think the hon. gentleman was being over-hasty in the way in which he tried to explain this Bill to this House. A fundamental change is in fact being effected in section 46 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1939. We understand the background against which and the reasons for which subsection (3) of section 46 has to be altered. It is also quite correct that when the Act was originally passed, it was most certainly the intention that the members of a co-operative society were able to decide at a general meeting that there should be certain reasonable restrictions when it came to the inspection of the books of the co-operative society. If this legislation is piloted through without any amendment, I must point out to the hon. the Minister that it will then be almost impossible for a member of a co-operative, if he so prefers, to inspect the books from time to time.

If one were to read the Co-operative Societies Act and interpret it correctly, one would realize that it constitutes exceptional advantages to the farming population, but at the same time a tremendous number of obligations are imposed on a farmer when he becomes a member of a co-operative. He accepts certain responsibilities for the sound management and administration of the co-operative of which he is a member. That responsibility rests not only on the directors, but also on the ordinary members of the co-operative. I believe that it is true in the case of many farmers to say that they are intensely interested in the co-operative in which they are members.

The farmers in South Africa today are no longer the farmers of bygone days, who had to rely on other persons to tell them what a balance sheet or the operating liabilities or the operating costs of a co-operative meant. Our farmers have made considerable progress in the interim, and consequently I would not find it at all strange if a farmer were to display the necessary interest in his co-operative which markets his produce, is of great service to him and even helps him to obtain his means of production. If the Bill is passed as it reads at present, it will become more difficult for a person to inspect the books in terms of the proposed section 46(3).

The hon. Minister knows that there was a recent court case. I am not prepared to mention names, but we know that certain officials refused to allow farmers to inspect the books of a co-operative. As a result of that refusal application was made to the court to the effect that the farmers should in fact be entitled to inspect the accounts and books of the co-operative.

It was only one farmer.

That is quite correct; it was only one farmer. However, I want to advance another argument Some of the strongest co-operatives in South Africa have existed for many years, and I think that they have always allowed a farmer, within reasonable limits, to investigate the management of the organization, the control of the organization, the soundness of the organization, and so on. The strongest co-operatives exist, and since the Act came into operation in 1939 it has never been necessary to come to this House and to ask for such steps to be taken as those set out in paragraph (b).

Restrictions?

Yes, the restrictions which will now come into operation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are prepared to support him in the Second Reading. We do not want to oppose this because we think that principles of democracy are involved in this Bill. What it amounts to is that the co-operative may, through its members, adopt a resolution which is a reasonable one. They may adopt a resolution to impose reasonable restrictions as far as the inspection of the books of account are concerned. However, if the Bill is passed without the addition of a proviso of some kind, the farmers who are members of a co-operative—and particularly because of the proxy system—may convene and impose restrictions which could make it almost impossible for a person—while this principle is contained in paragraph (a) and a person has this right —to inspect those books. I wish to point out the following words to the hon. the Minister—

The hon. the Minister mentioned that they would not like to make confidential information public, information which could prejudice such a co-operative and, directly and indirectly, the members themselves. That is correct; one would hot like to make public the information which rivals and opponents would use to influence the marketing of a farmer’s produce.

On the other hand there exists today the situation of the Wool Commission. The entire world knows what the position on the wool market is. The entire world knows how many bales of wool the Wool Commission must purchase; the entire world knows what the position in Australia and New Zealand is. It is not always to the detriment of a certain farmer if certain information leaks out and becomes public. However, there are certain things which are necessary. For example no one wants a member of a co-operative to be able to discover what the financial position of A or B is, when the latter are members of that co-operative. It has nothing to do with the other members. The point of departure of any person who wants to inspect the books of a co-operative is usually to find out how that co-operative is being controlled and administered He is not interested in information which is of a confidential nature, and which affects members of the co-operative themselves. But he should in fact be able to judge whether the institution is being soundly managed, since he has certain obligations under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. Even if a member has resigned from a co-operative and that co-operative finds itself in financial difficulties, he is still responsible for the debts of the co-operative which were incurred before he resigned. Does the hon. gentleman know that this is a provision of the Co-operative Societies Act? If a person has any suspicion that his co-operative’s affairs are not being managed on a sound basis, he is obliged to ascertain what the position is, and he can help the management and the directors to take steps to ensure that that institution is again placed on a sound footing. There are many examples of co-operatives which for a long time experienced financial and marketing difficulties. At one stage the hon. the Minister himself was the chairman of a co-operative which passed through a very difficult time. That co-operative has made a strong recovery. Suppose that hon. gentleman was not prepared to take his fellow-members into his confidence and tell them that steps should be taken to straighten out the affairs of that co-operative again. But this could be done because the farmers were at liberty, in terms of section 46, to ascertain precisely what the situation in their institutions was.

In what way does this amendment impose restrictions in regard to this matter?

I am pleased the hon. gentleman asked that question. I want to tell him what we want to propose in the Committee Stage, so that the hon. gentleman may know about it. There should be a proviso at the end of paragraph (d). That proviso should read more or less as follows (translation)—

If this proviso is not there, it becomes fundamentally impossible to discover what the position in a co-operative is. What then is the intention of paragraph (a), which grants the right to carry out an inspection to ascertain what the actual situation is? I do not think this proviso will throw open the doors, thus enabling people to discover all kinds of secrets. It will afford that person who is honest and sincere in regard to his own institution the opportunity of ascertaining on an honest basis how that organization is being controlled and managed.

However, we support the Second Reading of this Bill because as I have said it was most certainly the intention of the legislature in 1939 that reasonable restrictions could in fact be imposed by the members themselves. It was certainly not their intention that members could go so far as to virtually close the doors to any form of inspection. This amendment, which we wish to propose during the Committee Stage, is also in accordance with what was said last year in the court case by a chartered accountant. They understand what is meant by the definition of a books of accounts of a co-operative. For that reason I feel that our amendment will be in accordance with common practice. People will then understand what it means to inspect the books of account of a company or a co-operative.

Mr. Speaker, as was clearly apparent from the Second Reading speech made by the hon. the Minister, a technical problem arose in regard to the text of the Act. The result has been that the books of every co-operative in South Africa are open to inspection by any member of a co-operative who wishes to see them. This technical problem arose as a result of a court judgment. It is therefore imperative that this problem be rectified, for it could cause individual members of co-operatives acute embarrassment. It is also very important to note the position of co-operatives as they have developed during the past 36 years—since the principal Act was passed. There are cases of co-operatives which have as many as 10 000 and 15 000 members. I even know of co-operatives which have up to 16 000 members. In other words, every farmer and every person practising agriculture in a region in which a certain cooperative is established is virtually a member of that co-operative. Even part-time farmers are members of that co-operative. In other words, we can adopt the standpoint that everyone in a rural region who participates in any way in the co-operative movement, is a member of a specific co-operative. The position is that every member may now insist on inspecting the books of the co-operative, which, as the hon. member for Newton Park said, could create acute embarrassment. However, the hon. member then went on to raise arguments which to my mind sounded contradictory. He agreed that it could create embarrassment for a co-operative if its books were open to all and sundry, but at the same time he said that the amendment of this clause would to a certain extent cause the books of the co-operative to be closed again.

In other words, as far as the hon. member is concerned the books of the cooperative are not yet open enough. The hon. member therefore wants to cause the co-operatives even further embarrassment than we have recently been experiencing.

Subsections 3(a) and (b) are also contradictory. We should rectify this as well.

If the proposed paragraph, (b) had formed part of section 46(3) of the principal Act, very few co-operatives would have made use of it because the individual members normally take very little interest in the books of a co-operative and because they not only have every confidence in their directors, but they themselves appoint an auditor every’ year at the members’ meeting. The directors do not appoint an auditor; he is appointed by the members. Once the members have appointed the auditor, he still has to be approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Section 43 of the principal Act also determines what reports the auditor should furnish at the annual meeting of the members. Section 43(14) provides—

And then the section specifies the statements which shall be mentioned in the report. The report must state whether the auditor has received all the information and a comprehensive explanation. In addition it has to be stated in the report, and I quote paragraph (d)—

Paragraph (e) provides that the report should also state—

In other words, the auditor even examines the statutes of the co-operatives. This is the guarantee of the members of the co-operative. In other words, the members are in any case, apart from this provision, able to inspect the books through the agency of the auditor appointed by them. Perhaps I should also mention that the members themselves, and not the directors, determine the fee which shall be paid to the auditor. In other words, the auditor’s association with the members is very strong because the members have the power to determine his fee. In view of the provisions of this section it is certainly not necessary to open the books of a co-operative to á greater extent than is the case at present in terms of the provisions of this section. I believe that this provision was introduced in 1939 because in 1939—this is a very old Act—we had the position that there were a considerable number of unlimited co-operatives. This is my personal opinion. The liability of the member of a co-operative was therefore unlimited. I think that, as a' result, it was made doubly certain that this right would be granted to a member, for a member of the co-operative knows that if things go wrong in his co-operative, his entire farming practice could be involved in the process. Today, however, there are very few co-operatives of this type left in South Africa. The liability of the members of co-operatives is limited today, as in the case of a public company. In terms of the Companies Act only the directors of a co-operative have that right; I do not think that ordinary shareholders have the right to pry into the books of a company. Because these people are business-orientated, and geared to business practice, they will certainly not allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to pry into their books. I also think that our co-operatives today are sufficiently modernized in the business world to be able to act in a completely sophisticated manner. Consequently our members are completely satisfied with the position.

As I have said, the Co-operative Societies Act is an old Act, and it is probably necessary to reconsider it. I want to allege that these particular provisions are obsolete, and that we should reconsider them. We shall have to see whether it is in fact necessary to grant members of co-operative societies this kind of right, since co-operatives have now developed to such an extent that the section which I quoted creates proper and sufficient guarantees for its members. I think that we shall have to take another look at the principle of affording members this kind say.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member foresee that the right in terms of section 46 of the Act will in future be removed entirely?

If the Cooperative Societies Act is reconsidered, and additional provisions could be introduced in all the relevant sections in regard to the rights of auditors, I do not see why precisely such a provision should again be included in the new Act if the old Act has been redrafted. In other words, the principles contained here could be replaced by other measures. This provision is very unpractical. It could create problems in practice. Mention has inter alia been made of “reasonable restrictions”. What are “reasonable restrictions”? That is an open question; it is a relative concept. In other words, one could encounter adversity and problems all over again, which could possibly cause the co-operative movement great embarrassment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethal has just said that, as far as he is concerned, he will be completely satisfied if the right which members of co-operative societies have to go through the books, were to be taken away. I think I am interpreting him correctly in saying that. He alleges that co-operatives have made so much progress that if there is an auditor who checks the books of the co-operative properly and reports on them, it is no longer necessary for members of the co-operative society to have the right of inspecting the books. I think that I have understood him correctly. I am very sorry to hear that from the hon. member because the co-operative movement is a much larger one than the hon. member for Bethal thinks.

But he is the chairman of a large co-operative himself.

Co-operatives do not only deal with the type of product which the hon. member for Bethal markets, but with many other matters in the life of our community. In the case of our country, the life of a co-operative is actually part of the life of our country and of our people. Therefore we must be very careful if we are going to tamper with them, especially if we want to do so in the way which the hon. member for Bethal suggests. He suggests that we take away the right of a member to inspect the books in which he has an interest. That right has existed for many years. This Co-operative Societies Act was passed at a time when the Companies Act already existed. As far as I can remember, that Companies Act never granted the shareholder of a company the right to inspect the books. From the beginning and in spite of the fact that a shareholder did not have the right in terms of the Companies Act to inspect the books, this right was granted to members of co-operatives and I think for a very good reason. One of the duties of co-operatives in our national economy today, is to market. Today there are many sorts of one channel marketing schemes. Co-operatives are the instruments which allow these schemes to succeed. Suppose there is a co-operative which is the one channel marketing agent for more than one product. Suppose as well that those products are complete diverse in nature. Suppose that one is dried fruit and the other skins. There is a big difference between the marketing of dried fruit and the marketing of skins. The only point of similarity between the two is that both are dry—the skins are dry and the fruit are dry. I just hope that this debate is not dry as well! The fact is that when there is more than one interest involved in the marketing of a product, the members must be able to inspect the books. If the members are not able to inspect the books, how do they know whether one of the products which is marketed is being marketed at a loss and the other product at a profit?

May I ask a question?

A little later. How are they to know whether the one product is not feeding on the other? I have gone through the books of many co-operatives and I have also gone through the balance sheets, financial statements, etc., of co-operatives. I am also a member of a considerable number of co-operatives. I must say that the audited accounts of the co-operatives of which I am a member, give no indication of which of the products which I do not supply myself, is actually being sold at a profit and which products are being sold at a loss. When I look at those statements, I do not know whether my product is selling so profitably that it is bearing all the costs of the co-operative. It is very important that I should know this. Consequently I ask my co-operative to let me inspect those books. I want to know what is happening to the skins and the dried fruit. I want to know exactly how much money is being spent in respect of dried fruit and in respect of skins. I want to look at all those books, and it is only after I have examined those books that I shall know whether my dried fruit are really showing a profit or a loss. Then I am in the posit: on to go to the annual general meeting and to say to the meeting that I am dissatisfied, because my product, dried fruit, is selling at a tremendous profit, while the skins are selling at a loss, and that I am getting a lot less for my product than I should get, because the full cost of the co-operation has to be borne by my product. Why should I bear the loss on the skins? It is very unfair. Where only one product is being sold or processed, or where all the members of the co-operative produce the same product, I can see that it is unnecessary because then statements will show everything which the members would like to know. I think, for example, of milk. No member will make any objection to the accounts of a milk cooperative, because it is the only product which the co-operative sells, and the members can see everything they want to know in the annual statement. It is when more than one product is being sold by a cooperative that the difficulty arises. I think, Sir, that it will be a big mistake to introduce this restriction into the Act, because we say that the annual general meeting may decide about the nature of the books which may be inspected. Let us suppose that at the annual general meeting there are representatives of the skin producers and of the dried fruit producers, but that the skin producers number 2 000 and the dried fruit producers only 100. It will be extremely difficult for the dried fruit producers to prevent the meeting, which is packed full of skin producers, from deciding that they are no longer going to allow the books of original entry and the different ledgers, etc., which the dried fruit producers would like to see, to be inspected by them. That is unfair. Sir, I know that the hon. member for Bethal is the chairman of a very good cooperative and I know that matters are handled very well there, but what would happen at an annual general meeting, if he and other members who produce the same product, were in the minority? In the first place, he would not be elected chairman. In the second place, he would never get an opportunity to inspect the books, because the producers of other products, who are in the majority, would not want him to see what poor business was being done in connection with the other products. That is the crux of the matter. We are going to provide here that the annual general meeting may decide. There are many co-operatives who process or market or process and market a variety of products. In those circumstances, there are many interests which are not the same. Not only are there interests which are not the same, but perhaps a much larger number of members who have a lesser interest in the operating results of the co-operative than members who have a real interest in these. There might be a small group of men—perhaps 20 or 30— who supply a product to the co-operative on which the co-operative makes a tremendously big profit. What chance does that handful of people have to inspect the books? Sir, do you know what they will have to do? They will have to go the Minister. The Minister does not know what he is letting himself in for with this amendment. Now they will have to go to the Minister and tell him they want an investigation. How many investigations can there be? In every case of a co-operative producing and marketing a variety of products, they will ask for an investigation. Will the Minister be able to refuse it? No, he will not be able to refuse. Then there will be a great waste of time and labour and hours and hours will be spent quite unnecessarily on ensuring that justice is being done to these people. And yet it is so easy to remedy the matter here. I can see that there is a difference between the English and the Afrikaans versions of this Act. However, I say that if we improve it, let us improve it in such a way that it will at least be a reasonable improvement. When I see what the hon. member for Newton Park wants to move in the Committee Stage, then I must say that it is extremely fair. We shall be giving the annual general meeting the right to decide whether the inspection of the books will be restricted or not. We shall also be giving them the right to say that this sort of book may be inspected in these circumstances and that sort of book in those circumstances, but we shall be telling them that they may not say at the annual general meeting that books of original entry, the ledger and the nominal ledger, and all original documents which serve as books of original entry …

Does that include contracts?

I shall not say contracts as well, but I say that if there is no other method of using a book of original entry to record an amount in the ledger, except by a document, then that document must be there. And perhaps there might be other records as well which can serve as a book of original entry. Then the member must have the opportunity to see that book. This is not unreasonable and it satisfies everybody. Then those people who are in the minority, cannot complain to the Minister and ask him to institute an inspection because they cannot get anywhere in regard to what is happening at their cooperative, although it might seem to them, for instance, that the skins division of their co-operative is completely bankrupt or that the dried fruit division in which they are interested, is in a very profitable position as a result of which they want certain adjustments to be made in the control of this co-operative or in the running of this co-operative—for example, that levies be imposed on the skins, or something like that, so that those skins are not sold at a loss to the co-operative. [Interjections.]

†Sir, I do not want to become technical about this piece of legislation. I know that the hon. the Minister would like to have this legislation on the Statute Book, but I do not think that the Minister understands the implications of what we have been saying here now. He probably understands now, but he probably did not understand when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it is a very simple matter. Everybody will be satisfied. We are quite prepared to come to the assistance of co-operatives. We believe they they are entitled to assistance and we should like to assist them as far as we can. However, we believe that we have to be fair, and we cannot be fair unless we have some sort of restriction on the restrictive practice which the annual general meeting of a co-operative society can bring about by means of an ordinary resolution. I believe that the suggestion which we make is a sound one, viz. to add a proviso to paragraph (b) to the effect that no restrictions shall be imposed in respect of books of original entry or ledgers, including nominal and debit and credit ledgers, and all books, documents or other records which are regarded as books of original entry. I cannot believe that any co-operative society is going to feel in the least bit affronted if we pass the legislation with this proviso added. Then at least they will have the opportunity of taking this decision and they know before taking the decision that they can bring about restrictions save and except these specific restrictions which we say they cannot bring about.

They will still be able to get to grips with the scandal-mongers.

Coming back to the question raised by the hon. member for Bethal, I do not believe that there is any member of a co-operative society who wants to do what the hon. member for Bethal says such a member may do, viz. scratch around in the books in order to try to find some information about his fellow members. I do not believe that there is any member of a co-operative society who would like to do that. If there is a member who would want to do that, then I believe it can be made difficult enough for that member without specific legislation in that regard. I say that the legislation with the amendment which we intend moving in the Committee Stage is going to make matters very much easier for co-operative societies and I believe that they will welcome it. I do not think that there can be any justification for any hon. member on the other side of the House to say that we do not want to support the legislation. We are quite prepared to support it. We believe it is reasonable legislation and we support it subject to only this proviso. I think this is a reasonable proviso, as I have said before, and I believe it should be part and parcel of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg made a statement in his speech which, to my mind, amounts to an indirect charge against the board of directors of a co-operative. He asked in what way a member of a co-operative could ascertain whether one division of a co-operative was not feeding on another division. I do not know how the hon. member’s co-operative operates, but I want to refer him to ours, the co-operative which was involved in the court case, viz. the Klein Karoo-landboukoöperasie at Oudtshoorn. Before every annual general meeting the financial statements, which give a full account of the business done by each division in the previous year, are open to inspection. In addition to that, there is the certificate of the auditor, and every auditor who is worth his salt will report to the members if there is a division which shows a loss. Then he will recommend that attention be given to such a division. This is what is done at our co-operative. I remember that during our latest annual general meeting, mention was made of a division which was not profitable and attention was then given to that division

With the best will in the world I cannot agree with the hon. member for Newton Park who alleged that this change was an essential one. This change does not affect the essence of the Act. Nor does it affect the court judgment, of which the hon. member made mention, in any way. We must agree on this, because I believe that we should not like to prejudice our co-operatives and see law reports every day in which our co-operatives are involved. However, at the moment we are dealing with a situation which is totally uncertain. Everyone will agree that it is very clear that the English and the Afrikaans versions of the Act concerned are in conflict. The Afrikaans version indicates that restrictions may be imposed as to which books may be inspected. The English version, on the other hand, indicates that restrictions may be imposed in respect of the times at which the books may be inspected. When this case was before the Cape Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Steyn pronounced judgment in favour of the applicant, because the English version was the signed and the valid one. You will agree with me that it is nonsensical to make this Act refer to hours. There have always been fixed office hours. I do not believe that people had different office hours in 1936-’39 from those which we have today and they certainly did not work longer hours than we work today. The intention of the legislators of that time was therefore, that it should refer to account books. Now, the judge said in his judgment that the legal provision concerned could give rise to problems in practice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, May this case be discussed, because it is on appeal to the Appeal Court at the moment.

Man, you do not know what you are talking about.

But this is so.

If this is so, the hon. member should rather not discuss the case any further.

I should like to confine myself to the principle of this matter. I want to argue this afternoon that the intention of the legislators was that this Act would have reference to the account books. The hon. member for Newton Park said in his argument that the principle of democracy was being endangered.

No, I did not.

Yes, you did say so.

What I said was that it was being reduced.

That is precisely what I want to advocate, because in this amendment, the principle of democracy is built in and completely safeguarded. What are we dealing with here? Here it is said that the annual general meeting may decide. What does the annual general meeting consist of? It consists of the legal members of that co-operative. The hon. member for Newton Park has an objection to the proxy system. I know that there is an objection, but if a member of a cooperative does not want to take the trouble to attend the annual general meeting and if he wants to sign his vote away and not come and exercise it there, surely he does not take an active interest in his cooperative. It is members themselves who are able to determine what restrictions there will be on the account books. In other words, this is purely a recognition of the right of members. After all, measures have that right in the election of the directors. Who elects the directors? The same members who elect the directors will now have the right to impose restrictions on the account books. These are the same members who appoint the auditor during the annual general meeting of the co-operative. In other words, we want to take away the right of the members of the co-operative so that they cannot decide what restrictions will be imposed on the account books.

Now these are the democrats in the country.

Here we have a protection of members and I want to advocate that there should be protection for members’ private accounts at a cooperative. After all, one cannot walk into any bank and say that one wants to see one’s friends bank account. It is not allowed. In the same way, we shall not be able to walk into a co-operative and say that we want to see all the books. It will mean and it does mean that members’ private accounts have to be presented as well.

Surely you have to say why you want to see the books?

There is also business which is done in the interests of all the members. The directors of a cooperative are farmers themselves, after all, and the business which is done, is also in their interests. Will they do business which will have repercussions for them and which will be to their own detriment? In other words, I want to advocate that certain business of the co-operative should be protected and the members of the co-operative must be able to decide about this at an annual general meeting. Any co-operative or society has confidential information. If a member were to obtain the full right to page through all books, documents and invoices, surely confidential information would be out on the streets before long. I believe members have a right to protection. There has to be a proviso and that is what we find built into this Bill. However, I believe that this matter can be solved very easily. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to skins. I do not know what sort of skins they have in Wynberg.

Harry’s skin.

We have many skins in Oudtshoorn, and there have been oblique references to those skins. I know there are members who feel that more could be obtained abroad for those skins, but I have confidence in the board of directors of that co-operative and I trust that they will obtain the best price for their members in order to see that their members make the greatest possible profit. I do not think we should fight here this afternoon about co-operatives and boards of directors. We must have confidence in them and we must accept that the members and the board of directors will give their co-operation on both sides so that our cooperatives may operate as they did in the past, i.e. in the interests of their members and in the interests of our farmers. I think we all have the highest praise for our cooperatives and for what they have already done for agriculture in general. Therefore, I support this Bill wholeheartedly and I believe that as it stands at the moment, we will not have problems in the future if boards of directors do what is expected of them and the members also make their contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to steer this debate on a slightly different course. I should like to deal specifically with the question of distinguishing, firstly, between shareholders in a company and members of a co-operative, because I believe the same principles cannot apply to both. What is important is that we do not want a situation in terms of which anyone can scratch around in the books in order to find information which is not of benefit to him but which he can use in order to embarrass other people. I think the hon. the Minister should have another look at section 45 because in terms of section 45 the accounts of the company are to be in a form to be prescribed by him. I think that what has been prescribed in terms of co-operative societies is somewhat out of date in relation to modern developments in accounting. I think the hon. the Minister will know what has now been prescribed for companies as such. To my mind, part of the remedy lies, perhaps, in making more accounting information available to the members of a co-operative society. I also believe that if there is to be a restriction on what should or should not be made available, the hon. the Minister could, if he wanted to go further than that, prescribe by regulation what cannot be withheld from members. That would, in fact, solve the problem in relevant circumstances. I for one believe that whereas members of a co-operative society are entitled to information which relate to their participation in that co-operative society, they are not entitled to go beyond this and embark on a kind of hunting operation and poke their noses into the affairs of other people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville said that cooperatives differed from companies. If one looks at the Companies Act, one finds that shareholders have no right to go through the books. They only have the right to see the annual statements, the reports and interim reports of the directors. Therefore I think one has to see whether there is a difference between a member of a co-operative and the shareholder of a company. I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park. A member of a co-operative possibly has more responsibility towards his co-operative than a shareholder has towards his company, because he is voluntarily a member of that co-operative and because he is sometimes obliged, for example, in terms of the one-channel system, to sell through that co-operative. Therefore I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that a member of a co-operative possibly has that obligation.