Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister announced last night that housing for Whites in the lower income groups was no longer a major problem. Except for giving the hon. the Minister and his department credit for this fortunate fact, I should like to limit myself, for the rest, to another important matter.

The census of Coloured farm labour in 1970’71 throughout the country, indicates that 92 385 Coloureds are regular employees on farms. Housing is provided for these people by the farmers themselves. They represent 554 300 souls. In addition to these people there are 118 554 casual employees and 17 300 domestic servants, who also live either on the farms or in Coloured group areas. For the purposes of my argument this afternoon, I leave these last two categories out of account. Therefore, we can accept that the farmers provide housing for approximately 554 300 Coloureds on the farms. At the same time, the State has provided funds for the completion of 194 224 dwelling units for Coloureds up to the end of March last year. That represents housing for 895 540 people. Therefore, between the farmers and the State, housing has been provided for approximately 1½ million Coloureds. The present shortage of houses for squatters, as well as the natural population growth, i.e. those on waiting lists for housing, is for approximately 69 000 families, who represent a further number of approximately 400 000 souls. Therefore, the housing which has been provided by the farmer and the State and the need which still exists, cover virtually 2 million people. My figures might be somewhat high, but I calculate these at six souls per family, and that is also the basis on which the department bases its figures. No matter how we look at this situation, there are very few Coloureds who provide for their own housing needs.

Why is that so? The hon. member for Piketberg also referred to this aspect yesterday. I want to agree with him that income is not the only obstacle in this connection. In my opinion, there is a more important reason, and that is a lack of motivation. Among these very people, there are many tradesmen. There are many tradesmen who are in the building industry.

While this department has made community development a high priority, at least as high as priority as the provision of housing, for which we are very grateful, I hope that a greater will can be generated among the Coloureds themselves to build houses and to help develop their community. In my opinion, the department should take the initiative and direct and co-ordinate the activities of other Government departments involved in this matter. I know that the hon. the Minister made a remark in this connection yesterday. I do not expect the Ministers to sit on one another’s laps, but the impression which we gain, is that there is still a lack of co-ordination between various Government departments as far as this matter is concerned. I gain the impression that in housing schemes which already exist and in the creation of attractive and well-ordered communities, the activities of the various bodies are not sufficiently well co-ordinated and directed. I think there are schemes in which people have been living for a long time, but in which there are no proper roads as yet, in which schools are lacking, in which business and welfare services either do not exist or are very scarce; it occurs to me that there are many of these places in which health services do not exist and in which proper means of transport are not available sometimes. While our petrol position and the unusually high cost of road construction requires it, public transport is of very great importance to these people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow up the argument of the hon. member for False Bay. I should like to tell him, however, that he should not lay the blame for the shortage of housing at the door of the Coloureds only. I feel that the Government is to be blamed for this to a large extent, because it is their fault that the backlog as regards Coloured housing has grown bigger and bigger throughout the years.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has announced the appointment of a commission on housing. I should like to have his assurance this afternoon that he will in fact table the report of this commission as soon as it becomes available. The reason why I am seeking this assurance from the hon. the Minister is that because we had the experience in the past when a commission in relation to the Rents Act was appointed, that that particular report was never tabled. In fact, it is buried somewhere in the archives. We would like the assurance of the hon. the Minister this afternoon that the report of the commission he has just appointed will be tabled as soon as it is available.

I feel that the hon. the Minister is in the position to play a very major and important role together with his department as far as race relations in South Africa are concerned. I just want to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister this afternoon as time does not allow for anything more. In the first instance, I want to ask the hon. the Minister very seriously to reconsider very carefully the question of the allocation of land in District Six. I feel that the hon. the Minister should consult with, the executive committee of the RC and the executive committee of the Indian Council. After he has had in-depth consultations with them the hon. the Minister should then have discussions with his colleague the hon. the Minister of planning and the Environment, and then come back to this House with far more meaningful recommendations in regard to District Six than we have had up to now. The second matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister—I am pleased to see the hon. member for Caledon here as well—is the question of the Opera House in Port Elizabeth. I should like to appeal very seriously and earnestly to the hon. the Minister to issue a permit whereby the Opera House in Port Elizabeth will be opened to all races immediately. I believe that in this particular matter a crisp decision must be taken immediately. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that this action is fully warranted, fully justified, and that the whole of Port Elizabeth wants it, with the exception perhaps of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and a few other Nationalist Party members in Parliament. Sir, I appeal to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and those other Nationalist M.P.s to consider this matter seriously in depth. I believe that they will then come to the conclusion that the opera house must be open to all races. Mr. Chairman, I know that you will not permit it, but I should like just in passing to say that we wish the new Administrator of the Cape Province the best of luck in his exalted position. Since we are going to have a new Administrator by the end of this week, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consult with the new Administrator early next week. I can assure him that the new Administrator is a man who is able to take crisp decisions. Those of us who served with him in the Provincial Council for a long time did not always agree with him, but at least we knew that he was a man who took crisp decisions. If the hon. the Minister together with the new Administrator should take the decision next week to open the opera house in Port Elizabeth to all races, he would take this entire matter out of the political arena, and I think the sooner that is done, the better it will be for race relations in South. Africa.

Another matter of a different sort that I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister in relation to housing is that at present certain borrowers from building societies receive a 2% subsidy on their bond interest provided they have a bond of not more than R15 000 and the valuation of the house is not more than R20 000. Unfortunately a very serious problem arises here, because this subsidy does not apply to a purchaser who buys a house under the Sale of Land by Instalments Act. The purchaser who buys under this particular Act does so for certain reasons, and I would like to mention a couple of examples. Firstly, he buys because the building societies have not got sufficient funds to grant him a bond, so he buys on suspensive terms and takes transfer after a certain period. The other reason why he buys under this particular Act is that he has not got a large enough deposit to qualify for a building society loan. In these cases the seller acts as creditor instead of the building society acting as creditor. Surely in these particular cases the hon. the Minister should seek to alleviate the position of the buyer who buys under a suspensive deed of sale. I would like to urge the hon. the Minister strongly to consult with his colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance so that the necessary adjustments can be made in this regard. Sir, the building society movement in South Africa plays a vital part in meeting housing requirements. These societies are geared to play a far greater part than they are playing at the moment, but they are hamstrung due to an absolute lack of finance. South Africa, as the hon. the Minister knows, is going to require more houses in the next 25 years than we have built over the last 300 years. This situation is very serious indeed. If the hon. the Minister will look at page 19 of the report by his Secretary, he will see that under “Building loans by combined building societies’ commission scheme” it says that the position as at 31 December 1973 was that 9 547 loans had been granted for approximately R57 million. During the period 1 January 1974 to 31 March 1974 only one building loan for R7 750 was granted. This reflects the absolutely impossible situation in which the building society movement finds itself. I think this is a tragic situation, and I believe that the hon. the Minister is in a position to help the building society movement. The situation demands that the Government grants sufficient concessions to the building societies to enable them to attract much more funds. I would like to give the hon. the Minister a few examples as to how this could be done. Allow building societies the right to offer higher tax-free rates and extend the present limit on tax-free investments. Secondly, I believe that the hon. the Minister could generate enormous sums of money for the building societies if he would allow them to sell on the open market under a building society guarantee the mortgage bonds that they grant. In other words, if a building society grants bonds for R100 million in a particular year, they should be able to sell those bonds in the open market provided they guarantee those bonds themselves. You would find that pension funds and other institutions, even Government institutions, would seriously consider buying those particular bonds. That would generate and regenerate the same money over and over again. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this suggestion. Then, when you go further on into housing, I think it is the duty of the Government and of local authorities and of the semi-public authorities like, for example, Iscor to see that they invest the maximum amount of money possible in the building society movement in order that the building societies may play a part that they are geared to play in relation to housing. In he time at my disposal I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would recommend to his colleague that relief be granted on interest paid on housing loans by the owners of those homes. The home-owner in South Africa is being slaughtered by the ever-increasing interest rate. In addition local authorities have been forced to increase the rates tremendously on homes; in fact, many home-owners are forced to sell their homes because they cannot afford to pay these rates. Now, I am not blaming these local authorities, because they are so short of finance that they are desperate but I believe it is tragic for people, more specially in the case of pensioners and people of fixed incomes, to be forced to sell their homes because they cannot afford to pay the increased rates which more specially appertains, I believe, to the urban areas. The hon. the Minister is obliged to give some relief to the average home-owner and to the person who would like to become a home-owner because they are becoming absolutely desperate. I read the report of the Secretary for Community Development. There is a lot of information furnished in that report, but I must say that there is one chapter missing, and the chapter that is missing is a most important chapter and that is in relation to the cash flow, the total commitment on total development of all the properties held by the Department of Community Development, the mention of all the landholdings, the details of all the landholdings in the various centres, the full programme of intended selling and over what period because one would like to see the anticipated year of commencement and the anticipated year or completion in regard to every scheme. In other words, we would like to see a blue-print of the biggest land baron in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister’s policy must be that he banks in land. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Walmer paid the hon. the Minister and his department a tremendous compliment by devoting half of his speech to opera houses being open or not open to certain people. If that is the only form of criticism which the Opposition can express on the work of this important department, then it is indeed a compliment to the department.

But to continue from where I left off just now, I want to say that even the Police are not always represented sufficiently well in these housing schemes. Therefore, I advocate that the Department of Community Development should accept responsibility for the total development of these projects and co-ordinate all necessary services, i.e. services of local and provincial authorities, as well as of departments such as Planning, Coloured Relations, Health, Labour, Transport, Police, and, if possible, influence the CRC fruitfully as well. Once again I emphasize one particular need, viz. that those people who do not work at all or work only a few days a week and who cannot pay a reasonable rental and consequently become a burden on those communities and who often are a source of terror to the decent people living there, must be efficiently dealt with, otherwise the Department’s aim will be frustrated. This proposed responsibility should also cover the socio-economic upliftment and development of Brown people, because if we do not succeed on that level, then our efforts with regard to community development will not succeed.

The hon. member for Omaruru pointed out yesterday that a larger degree of industriousness among the Coloured population was the keyword in solving this problem. I want to support that viewpoint one hundred per cent. Sir, according to our figures, we are making the grade in respect of housing for Coloureds in the larger Cape Peninsula and the Stellenbosch vicinity. We have heard that since September last year, 6 000 people have been housed, i.e. 1 100 squatter families. Furthermore, it has been agreed—and I shall be glad if the hon. member for Musgrave will pay attention now, because this proceeds from the point he made yesterday evening—between the department and the local authorities concerned that the following houses will be built up to 1978: The Cape City Council 15 000, the Cape Divisional Council 11 000, the Stellenbosch Divisional Council 11 000. That gives us a total of 37 000 houses withing a matter of four years. The normal population increase only requires approximately 5 000 extra houses per year. In other words, 20 000 houses will be required during those four years. Now here we have planning and agreements, in terms of which 37 000 houses are going to be built in four years, i.e. 17 000 more than those required to make provision for the population increase. In other words, on this basis the backlog must be made up. I can only hope, together with the hon. members for Durbanville and Tygervallei, that a lack of funds will not hamstring these efforts, because if the State does not take the lead in this comprehensive programme and if the Coloureds themselves do not begin putting their shoulders to the wheel, we shall not make up the backlog. But, what is more, if this does not happen we shall not be able to keep up either if the projections of the numbers by the year 2000 are correct. It is estimated that we shall then have approximately 4 million Coloureds, and we must see that in the light of what I said at the beginning of my speech, viz. that such a tremendously small percentage of them are self-sufficient as far as housing is concerned.

Furthermore, it seems to me as though the State is standing alone in this task, with a lot of vultures on the touch lines. Just touch a squatter and they come down with letters in newspapers and with telegrams inter alia, such as the one which one of my colleagues received from the Black Sash last year when squatters had to be cleared away on the Cape Flats. This organization and even the Progressive Party, too, are never heard discouraging squatting, and as far as family planning is concerned, we do not hear from them either, but when good order must be maintained, they are worse than a hen about her chickens.

It is clear that we are solving the problem in our cities, and that fine progress is being made. I am a little worried about the position in the rural areas for two reasons. We cannot afford to create, because of the very fact that better housing and better facilities are being provided here, a stronger drawing power in the cities for the national migration of the Brown people from the rural areas to the cities. Therefore, we shall have to work hard here as is being done by the department at the moment, but at the same time we may not neglect providing similar facilities in the rural areas. I believe that we cannot stop the influx to our cities only by means of strict action here. We shall also have to create the necessary facilities at the other side of the line. Since another hon. member on this side will deal with this matter, I shall not elaborate any further.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are convinced and aware of the fact that the Minister and his department are doing everything in their power to provide housing for the population. We are also aware of the fact that the Government is in earnest about performing this task. Not only does the Government have the duty to provide housing for our people; the Government also has the duty and the responsibility of managing the entire national economy of this country. Therefore the demands which are made upon the Government are enormous. Sir, various Votes have been discussed here recently. During the discussion of the Bantu Administration and Development Vote hon. members on this side produced the evidence, on the basis of figures and amounts, of what has been done in regard to housing for our Black people. During the discussion of the Coloured Affairs Vote as well the hon. member for Tygervallei and Hercules mentioned figures and amounts to indicate what we have done in this regard. I, too, pointed out that the State had provided good housing for more than 50% of these people in recent years. After we had done all these things, we still had to endure the criticism levelled by the opposite side of the House. Under the circumstances one really feels, as the Bible says, that those who have ears, should listen. However, there are hon. members on the opposite side who do not listen. Those who have eyes, should see. If we think of the position which existed in the Western Cape 25 years ago and compare it to the present position, then one should pity those people who are so blind that they cannot perceive these facts. Every reasonable person understands and acknowledges what has been done but from that side of the House there is no such thing as acknowledgment. They are simply not capable of it. The Government has performed miracles during past years in providing housing for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Black people. However, we have received little acknowledgment from the opposite side of the House for this. We should remember that that side of the House also had an opportunity to govern this country. It was not for a short while only; they governed this country for more than 15 years. Under their rule the housing position in South Africa became worse every year. This was the case to such an extent that in 1947 and 1948 there practically was almost no back yard here in Cape Town in which White families was not living, and that in hundreds of cases families were accommodated in garages in peoples’ backyards. What is the position today after the long period which this Government has been ruling? The Government knew where its responsibility lay and provided housing for the people. Today one will no longer find a single place in the city where such circumstances prevail. If we look around our cities, we see an enormous improvement. Slum conditions no longer exist today.

I want to associate myself with the argument of the hon. member for False Bay. It is necessary for attention to be given to the circumstances in the squatter camps which exist in Cape Town and vicinity. We would like to see such a situation being remedied. But allow me to point out that those circumstances also exist in the rural areas and unless the department comes to our assistance in this regard it will not be possible to do the clearance. Unless these areas can be cleared, it will be of no avail for the hon. the Minister and his department to pay attention to housing schemes and provide housing for the squatters in the Western Cape. As long as those conditions prevail, the stream will never stop, but will simply become worse in future. These people flee to the cities where they can in fact be provided with housing. I also want to say that this causes our people a great deal of harm. Many of the people who come to the cities are labourers and they come, because they know that they can get houses here. If provision is made for them, we will eventually find ourselves in the situation where those who are in fact able to find employment in the rural areas come to live in the cities for the sake of housing. Therefore I say that we are grateful to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for his announcement that a new housing scheme will also make it possible for the farmers to make a larger contribution to the accommodation of their labourers. If we wish to alleviate the conditions in the squatter towns, we will have to prevent similar conditions in the rural areas by making use of every possible means at our disposal.

Finally, I wish to address a request to the hon. Minister. I have already discussed this matter with the hon. Minister and I also spoke to the hon. Minister of Transport, who was at the time still the Minister of Police, when he was in Prieska. I had the opportunity to take him to the police station to show him what the police station in Prieska looks like. New police stations had been erected in nearly all the towns in my constituency—something we are very grateful for—but since Prieska is the principal town of my constituency and since it is one of the largest and most developed towns in the Northern Cape as a result of the mines in the vicinity I think Prieska deserves a new police station. I think it is justified for me to request that that police station should also be closed down. It is very outdated and when the public refer to the police station they refer to “the weaver nest”. I also showed the hon. Minister what the position is at the prison in the town. The hon. Minister at the time agreed with me that the conditions were deplorable and that it should be improved. As far as I know, the situation will change in that regard. The town council thought it fit to set aside an area for the department if the possibility of a new police station being built should exist. The erection of a police station is to my mind really justified. If we look at the criminal cases which are dealt with today and if we look at the detention of prisoners I think and believe that this request of mine is not unreasonable. If it would help I could add “please”, but I would rather say, thank you very much in anticipation, because I know the hon. Minister is conversant with the facts.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to hear the Speaker’s announcement this afternoon that the opening of Parliament will be held in this Chamber from 1976, until such time as a permanent venue is found. I am aware that there has been talk under this Vote of a plan to build a larger complex, to demolish the Marks Building and then to build a permanent home for the opening of Parliament here. It is one of the cases where modern development, even if it is very slow in the political sphere, replaces the old with new things and perhaps new circumstances. I should like to ask the Minister that, when the final decision is taken, the project be viewed with the greatest circumspection, especially in a case where a building such as the Marks Building will have to be demolished. It is probably one of the few sandstone buildings which are still standing in Cape Town. Even if the people who remain have to sit a little closer to each other at the openings of Parliament. I want to ask, nevertheless, that careful consideration be given to the matter before such an old building is demolished. One always finds the champions of preservation, and those who sometimes over-emphasize preservation often stand in the vanguard without any followers behind them. I am not a champion of preservation for the sake of preservation, but I feel, nevertheless, that one should take the atmosphere at an opening of Parliament and the stature of Parliament into account.

On this occasion I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to the member for Walmer for his pleasant words on the next Administrator of the Cape Province. I like it if a man is able to recognize the virtues of his opponent, and then describe these as excellently as he did here this afternoon. I want to tell him immediately that it is also important that, when be recognizes and describes the virtues of his opponent, he should also appreciate the decisions which are taken by his opponent as coming from someone who is able to take very “crisp” decisions, even if the hon. member is not completely satisfied with the decisions which are taken by that opponent.

I should like to devote a word to the atmosphere of this House, which I linked just now to a shifting of the venue for the opening of Parliament. The atmosphere of this House affects every newcomer, and I think I am now speaking on behalf of all the backbenchers here. This great Chamber and the great amount of talk, actually oppresses one a little when one first comes here. If one does not prepare oneself well to take part in a debate, nobody is really interested in what one has to say. If one comes here and realizes that one is part of the Parliamentary system, the system which has become customary here through the years and which originates from the British parliamentary system, one comes more and more under the impression of the responsibility which rests on one’s shoulders. When it happens then, that one is about to leave, one is sorry that one must lose something, that one must leave this system and this atmosphere for a place where one will perhaps not encounter it again.

In this parliamentary system the Speaker is the head, or controller, of Parliament. Therefore, I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Speaker, through you, Mr. Chairman, for what he has done in the time he has served here. I have not yet had to deal with many Speakers, but I can tell you that the way in which the Speaker has maintained this atmosphere, made one feel that he had been the Speaker of this Parliament for very many years. One feels that one is safe here, even if one is only a member of a small non-official Opposition. Then I should like to express my thanks and appreciation towards you, Mr. Chairman, and towards the Deputy Chairman of Committees for the way in which you always treated me, personally, and the other members as well, with the greatest friendliness. I want to tell all members who are here today, and those who cannot be here because of circumstances, that one appreciates the friendship, hospitality and friendliness in this House. When something is debated in this House—and now I return again to the atmosphere of this House—hon. members can argue and fight, but when they meet one another in the lobby, they are friends again. That is actually the true hall-mark of a parliamentarian. Today I want to mention two names in particular as examples of good parliamentarians. Those whom I do not mention, must pardon me. I want to mention the hon. member for Durban Point. He is my idea of a good Opposition parliamentarian. His conduct is always appropriate. Even when he looks as if he is sleeping, he can come up with a very appropriate remark, which can put any speaker completely off his stroke. When he puts questions to the Minister, or follows up on replies to questions, I have often seen a glint in his eye, which often almost embarrasses the Minister concerned. I also think of the hon. member for Carletonville, who is not in his seat at the moment. He is the only other one I am going to mention. I regard him as a thorough parliamentarian, because he never stands up here unless he has at least four or eight very complicated books in front of him. Usually he has made a study of all those books, and therefore, one can learn something from each speech which he makes, even if one thinks that he does not really want to talk about anything specific.

I want to refer again to the atmosphere of this House. One can understand that a House such as this cannot be without a Government. I want to express my thanks and appreciation towards the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for the way in which they have conducted themselves here to create the necessary atmosphere. I also want to express my thanks and appreciation towards the Leader of the Opposition. I had the privilege of playing under him in the parliamentary cricket team. As he behaves there, so one sees him always in his daily life. He always has an appropriate remark, a very good sense of humour, and, as is said of him in English, is “a thorough gentleman.” I am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to say something about him here. I should also like to thank the Deputy Ministers for their work here. I also want to thank the Whips. If it were not for the Whips, I would not be speaking now. I want to thank them all for what they do here.

Are you not going to thank Harry?

In conclusion I should like to mention in particular the “interim-70-group”, i.e. all those members on the National Party side who came in at by-elections in 1970. Here I want to mention the hon. member for Durbanville and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn in particular. At times they were my bench-mates. However, we moved up so quickly that at one time I was the one’s bench-mate and at another time the other’s. Without saying much about this today, I just want to say that we will always be able to regard to the “interim-70-group” as the driving force behind the front benches of the National Party.

†I want to conclude by saying that my sojourn—and I call it a sojourn because I feel I have been here a very short time— has given me a broader insight into the country, into its problems, the making of laws and the carrying out of certain functions that are necessary in a council such as this. There is the Government on this side and on the other side the Opposition —although at the moment in two or three parts—but a system nevertheless conducive to true democracy. If this system can consistently be carried through, South Africa cannot but be a better place.

*Finally I conclude by expressing my appreciation towards the Leader of the House for his patience, and the way in which he has introduced new things and for the way in which he has always acted as Leader of the National Party in the Cape Province. I say that with deep personal feeling. It is with sorrow that I take my leave, and with great expectations that I go.

Mr. Chairman, Since we have now come to the end of this discussion, and I shall have to make haste to react to what has still to be reacted to— my attention is fixed on 3.30—I just want to say the following before I proceed from where I stopped yesterday. I want to express my appreciation to hon. members for the atmosphere in which the discussion of the Community Development Vote has been conducted. I do not want to say much about this, except that it has always been my endeavour, when we are dealing with the welfare of people—it makes no difference to what political party or population group they belong—that it should be approached in this spirit. Because this has in fact been the case, I want to convey my appreciation to both sides of the House.

This brings me to where I stopped yesterday, namely to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, in dealing with which I also want to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Randburg. These two hon. members both tried to lay a finger on one aspect, namely on that aspect of the implementation of the Group Areas Act which causes people to get hurt.

I readily concede that disruption occurs in the implementation of the Group Areas Act. There are people who have to move, but they are not, seen from the point of view of my department, merely Coloureds or Indians. Frequently too, there are Whites who have to move and from whom I receive complaints as frequently as I do from the Coloured and Indian communities. This is a situation which unfortunately cannot be avoided. Since the impression is being created that my department is the “big, bad bully”, which pushes people around to its heart’s content, I want to emphasize again that the fact of the matter is that people are not moved until alternative provision has been made for them, or until they have had sufficient opportunity to make the adjustments which they were, on their part, supposed to have made. That is the extent to which my department takes action in that respect. This situation is also being linked to the housing shortage. On a previous occasion I pointed out—I want to say this to both hon. members to whom I am referring at the moment—that careful surveys indicated that in the case of the Coloureds for example who have to be moved in large numbers, 90% and more of those people came from slum and backward areas. I also pointed out that process of clearance took place at the same time. The people who were moved were therefore people who lived in shanties and who would have had to be accommodated in any case. The fact that these people were removed and settled elsewhere, does not mean that other people were in that way deprived of the opportunity of acquiring a house. Since I have mentioned these facts before, I do not want to dwell on them any further now.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also wanted to know from me what the position of the Indians and Malays in District Six will be. I am referring to the area which will now become a Coloured area, according to an announcement made by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning. My department has not yet taken over there. My department will, once a Coloured area has been proclaimed, have to see what functions there are for it there. The necessary studies will then have to be carried out. I accept that there are Malays, Coloureds and Indians—in fact, this is the case. When this situation is analysed, answers will have to be found, but I can inform the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central at this stage that my experience with Coloured communities and their townships has been that there will be objections on the part of the Coloured community if Indians are to remain on there, particularly as traders. It is my experience that objections will definitely be made by the Coloureds. Consequently this matter will have to be considered.

The hon. member for Omaruru placed particular emphasis on ownership. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that my department and I agree with him wholeheartedly that the importance of ownership in home occupation cannot be overemphasized. At the same time I can give the hon. member the assurance that where areas are being developed—I am thinking inter alia of parts of Mitchell’s Plain, Macassar and Belhar—ample provision is being made for people who wish to buy their own houses, i.e. who want to purchase, say, from the economic scheme. Provision is also being made for people who are able to help themselves. Building sites are being made available for them in order to stimulate ownership in this way. The hon. member for Hercules raised the question of Lady Selborne. I know that Lady Selborne is a long road which the hon. member for Hercules has had to walk for a long time. Unfortunately I am as yet unable, at this stage, to give the hon. member the news he would like to hear. Problems are being experienced, and here I have a summary of them. I should like to quote the last paragraph to the hon. member. The hon. member is also aware of the problems—

This is the application for township establishment—

At least they moved this possibility forward by a year—

My department is exerting pressure in this regard. I take it the hon. member is aware of the subsequent developments, namely that the head of Geological Survey decided that boreholes would first have to be sunk again and that the position would first have to be re-examined. However, I think that this matter will be finalized as soon as possible and then we will be able to continue with this process.

The hon. member for Rondebosch asked how the growth is being calculated. I feel very much like telling the hon. member that it is being done in a simply logical way, for we know from the statistics that exist what the expected growth per annum is in respect of this population group.

Who says it is logical?

One can always differ on logic, but this is my view of the logic. On that basis one can then calculate what the population growth in that community is. If one’s statistics indicate that the average family consists of four or five persons, then one decides that so many additional dwelling units per annum will be required over a certain period. Sir, the hon. member then asked me where the land is going to come from. I think that he should have put this question to my colleague, the Minister of Planning, in the first place. I should not like to venture into his domain. I want to tell him that my department is devoting attention to the matter of high density housing. This is one of the answers which have been found, but it is an answer which has to be handled carefully because it may bring social problems in its wake. It is expected that Mitchell’s Plain will be able to accommodate 250 000 people. I am thinking only of the Peninsula here. Then, too, there is the development at Dassenberg. It will in fact be possible to find land. South Africa or the Cape is not the only part of the world in which this problem is a real one and is becoming ever more pressing. Fortunately we are in this position that just as one has to branch out, so other developments are also, of necessity, required to branch out. For that, too, land is required, and in this way one’s community progresses even further. I do not want to say much about this problem which is really a highly technical and scientific problem.

Then the hon. member referred again to the squatter problem. Sir, when I told him that he was very idealistic but perhaps less realistic, I meant it in this sense that I do not think the real solution, the excellent answer, is to be found in what he said. I need mention only one example. In South, Africa, just as in any community, you will always have your unaccommodatable persons. Last year I furnished the hon. member with statistics, which I do not have with me at the moment but which are on record, of how many of the people who have to be removed from the squatters’ camps here in the Cape Flats are people who had been provided with housing and who had left. Here one also has the same position in respect of site-and-service emergency housing, to which the hon. member for Rondebosch referred. If you provide site-and-service amenities, one has the kind of situation which is being referred to in this cutting from a newspaper, of which I unfortunately do not have the name and date now, but it appeared recently—

This is where provision for home and service has been made—

I can also tell the hon. member the following in respect of site-and-service: The divisional council which is now giving attention to this matter and which is trying to find answers according to this pattern—in which I cannot oppose them provided they do not ask my department for money—are finding that they have to spend R500 per family in order to meet this need. The fact of the matter is that my department is providing sub-economic houses, subeconomic permanent houses for less than R2 000. Sir, these are situations which confront one every day. The City Council of Cape Town is at present dealing with such a squatter problem. According to the procedure which is now being adopted those squatters are not there illegally, and consequently the City Council is making temporary provision for those people away from that area. I have no objection to that, but I have, in the past, already elaborated at great length in this House on the squatter problem. A great many suggestions in regard to it have been put forward here. I am thinking of the suggestion put forward last year by the hon. member for Green Point. It did not pass through my head, going in at the one ear and out at the other. I am thinking of situations such as Elsies River. That was a site and service scheme. Today it is costing my department millions of rands to improve the situation in Elsies River.

The hon. member for Langlaagte made an interesting speech, and in the course of it he referred to the role of township developers. For his information I just want to say, for what it may be worth to his constituency, that sites will be made available within a reasonable period in Rietfontein, and also in Suideroord, Johannesburg.

The hon. member for Kimberley South expressed interesting ideas on beautification. I just want to tell the hon. member that one cannot argue with him on this score, for one sees this when one drives around among these schemes, even subeconomic housing schemes, but also among economic housing schemes. One can see at once which family is proud of what they have, because they have taken trouble to make their little place attractive. It may be a little three-bedroomed dwelling, by no means luxurious, but they have made an attempt to make it attractive, and it creates a pleasant atmosphere at once; immediately it becomes a place to which they are able to invite their friends with pride.

The hon. member for Germiston District experienced difficulty with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, which I do not want to dwell on. The point which the hon. member for Piketberg placed particular emphasis on was that Coloureds should be afforded the opportunity of helping themselves. I think the hon. member is aware that my department, in so far as its functions as departments are concerned, is trying to make such opportunities available to Coloureds to an increasing extent, to help them to help themselves in various ways. It depends to what extent they are qualified, and into which income group they fall. They may also approach the Community Development Board for assistance so that they can help themselves if they find that they do not qualify for the schemes of the National Housing Commission. Then they are able, just as the Whites are, to seek the assistance which is being rendered there. I have already referred to how sites are being made available. The hon. member for Piketberg also mentioned this, and stated, quite justifiably, that in this process in which, we are trying to eliminate the backlog among the non-Whites, particularly among the Coloureds and the Indians, we should not forget the Whites. I do not think this is the case. I do not think we are heading for such a situation, and the statistics which I quoted here yesterday, support this.

The hon. member for Durban Point raised a few thorny points. The hon. member for Durban Point is inclined to do this. He referred inter alia to the regular application of the means test. One should very much like to do this. As it runs at the moment, it is not a regular curve. To follow a regular curve would be difficult. A study of the cost of living index and how this affects the people in the group to be cared for still has to be made. Then, when that position has been ascertained, and we find adjustments are necessary, I cannot proceed on my own but have to go to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has to provide the money. Every time we lift the ceiling, it means that we are trying to include more people under the same umbrella. This means that one needs a bigger umbrella every time. It also means that I have to go to my colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance every time to ensure that the funds will in fact be available. But the study of what the tendencies are is being carried out continuously.

The hon. member also suggested that legal advice should be made available by my department to people who cannot afford it. I want to put it to the hon. member in this way: When there is a suspected criminal offence under the Rents Act, the machinery of my department and the people that it has in all the important centres, are at the disposal of people who wish to make inquiries. These are investigated by my department and if a criminal offence has occurred under the Rents Act, my department takes action. Cases of civil action also occur. The hon. member will realize that this is the case. The owner may, for example, issue summons on the lessee on the basis of the fact that he has, as far as his contract is concerned, failed to comply with it, in other words, that he has committed breach of contract In such cases I do not think that my department ought to take any action. I do not think that the legal profession would approve of this. Furthermore, the position is that when people need legal assistance, they can go to the Department of Justice. I do not know precisely how it works, or what requirements are imposed, but I do in fact know that when people require legal assistance which they are unable to afford, they may approach the Department of Justice. Under certain circumstances they are given assistance.

You have to be a complete pauper to qualify for that.

I do not know what the requirements are, but I think my department would be letting itself in for extremely impossible situations if it begins to act as a legal adviser in the case of civil actions.

The hon. member also mentioned—and here I have to agree with him—that constant applications for rent increases must be extremely irritating and annoying to people who are hardly able to afford it. I am thinking here of people who, in their old age, do not want to be plagued with things like this virtually from month to month or from quarter to quarter. I see no alternative than to lay down provisions in this regard, although this will amount to a blockage, and as soon as one stimulates a blockage in this manner, it would mean that one would perhaps, at specific times, hit people far harder than is the position at present, for then there would be decisions which would be with retrospective effect. We will have to be careful about that.

The hon. member for Westdene mentioned the business centre in Triomf. I can give him the assurance that my department is giving attention to this matter. How rapidly the situation is going to be cleared up I cannot, unfortunately, say at this juncture. The hon. member also referred to a contract which my department awarded in Abertville in regard to 19 houses. The hon. member furnished me with information to indicate what the real problems are there, according to his view. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that these aspects are being investigated. I do not want to say more about this matter at this stage, although I have in fact received more information. This is a private matter which I do not want to broach any further here. This matter is receiving the attention which it ought to receive. The department and I agree with the hon. member that the gas concrete houses do not present a very attractive appearance, but experience indicates that the public are nevertheless buying these houses very eagerly. In fact, the houses of this type which we have offered for sale, have all been sold.

The hon. member for Maraisburg referred to Newclare, Western Township and Kliptown. The matter of Kliptown, for example, is already receiving attention from the Johannesburg City Council, in co-operation with my department. I have driven through that area myself and I know what the position is there. It looked unattractive, and then I am thinking in particular of Kliptown, but attention is being given to this matter. The hon. member referred to recreational resorts for non-Whites. The function of my department extends only as far as community facilities in municipal areas. It has happened on occasion that my department has made recommendations in respect of recreational resorts, but this is more specifically an aspect which is the responsibility of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning. The hon. member pointed out that the flat rentals were too high. I can inform the hon. member that the rentals of these flats are determined on a non-profit making basis. I am prepared to look into this matter again to see whether any adjustments could possibly be made. According to the latest information I have received, some of the flats are unoccupied. I am prepared to look into this matter again. My department has to pay interest on this capital at the prevailing economic interest rates, for this is the rate at which we are able to receive money from the Department of Finance.

The hon. member for Durban Musgrave, who apologized for not being able to be here today, once again, like last year, looked 25 years ahead. He foresaw that we were heading for major problems in future. I want to tell the hon. member that I try to look just as far ahead as I am able to distinguish matters from one another realistically. I am not trying to look further ahead than that, for then one begins to see illusions. I do not want to reproach the hon. member for Musgrave, in his absence, with seeing illusions, but I want to tell him that the situation which he sketched, as it may appear in 25 or 30 years’ time, is in itself nothing new. It is being mentioned for statistical purposes. In fact I have done this myself. We are dealing with an ongoing process, with a steadily growing problem, if it is really problematical. But after ten years we can, in the same spirit and with the same calculation, again look 25 years into the future. That is the hard fact of the matter. As an hon. member on this side of the House said, our position is in reality no different from the position of other countries in the world. The hon. member referred to the Niemand Commission and to the committee which went into the matter of the Rents Act. The position of the Niemand Commission is not comparable with that of the committee which went into the matter of the Rents Act, for the Commission is a commission which was appointed by the State President. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Walmer, I can only say that the report of the Commission will be tabled. In the other case it was a committee which furnished me with advice. The allegation that nothing came of the Niemand Commission as far as land prices were concerned is not entirely correct either.

I can inform the hon. member for Walmer that, as far as the commission which was appointed by the State President is concerned, I have already replied to that. He also asked that District Six be reconsidered. To that question my reply and reaction is negative. We cannot, for all eternity, continue the consideration of District Six. My colleagues and I have gone into the position of District Six very thoroughly now. Hon. members opposite must appreciate that, if one has to plan for the settlement of Coloureds, one has to do so on a different basis than when one is planning for development by private White initiative, which is envisaged for this side of District Six. A great deal of money has already been invested in this. It is being said that an amount of R20 million has been invested in it. Seen from that point of view, we have to continue. In any event, I hope that we have now, as far as District Six is concerned, reached finality.

The hon. member also mentioned the civic centre in Port Elizabeth. There are a few Ministers involved in this. Those Ministers have to consult one another. We have heard that there has been too little co-ordination but we are consulting, and a final answer will in due course be given. The hon. member also referred to the 2% subsidy on interest, the home ownership schemes and problems local authorities are experiencing with these. If the hon. member were to glance at the terms of reference of the commission which I announced on Monday he would see that the Registrar of Financial Institutions is also serving on that commission. The matters which the hon. member raised are for the most part matters which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has to decide on in the first place. As I have said, the Registrar of Financial Institutions is serving on that commission. Representatives of building societies are also serving on it. In regard to the difficulty which is being experienced in involving the department in the ownership scheme, I assume that he is referring to home ownership schemes established with funds from the Department of Community Development. In that regard I just want to remind him of the sliding scale worked out by my department, which has been implemented since the beginning of this year. That sliding scale of payments was introduced to make it possible for people to pay at a lower rate in the initial years and then, as the income of this person increases, to pay a higher rate in future years so that the redemption period eventually remains more or less the same. We trust that this will bring considerable relief.

I have taken cognizance of the very interesting research the hon. member for False Bay has done in regard to this housing matter, and the interesting statistics which he mentioned. At this stage I just want to assure him that I will look at his speech again with attention, because he mentioned statistics and made inferences which I found really interesting.

The hon. member for Prieska referred to squatter conditions in the rural areas. I do not want to participate in any discussion of housing on farms; that lies outside the functions of my department. We are thoroughly aware that squatter problems are being experienced in country towns. My department is giving attention to this matter, but it is not possible to do everything a once. The hon. member must be aware that in the Republic of South Africa we are dealing with more than 900 local authorities, each with its own local housing problem. However, I can assure the hon. member that attention is being given to this matter. The hon. member also mentioned the police station. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that you would rule me out of order if I began to discuss the police station at Prieska under this Vote. The hon. member knows what my reproach in that respect is, for I have already conveyed it to him.

In his parting words the hon. member for Caledon made a very interesting statement. He referred to the Marks Building, which falls outside the scope of the Department of Community Development. This reminds me of what I said on Monday when we were discussing the Public Works Vote. I said that one should be careful in one’s approach to the matter of the Marks Building. I think I am speaking on behalf of the entire House when I wish the hon. member for Caledon, who was, as it were, taking his leave of us, a very happy and fruitful career in the provincial authority.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is generally conceded by all of us in this House that it is the aim of this Bill to provide the South African farmer with additional financial aid. The reasons advanced for this are that the cash credit system and the hypothec system, which were in fact of value in the past, have become out of date and must be adapted to meet the new requirements of agricultural financing. The primary aim of clause 3, of course, is also to allow the farmer to farm more efficiently and in addition, to keep his production costs as reasonable as possible. No one can doubt that the farmer’s production costs have risen steeply in recent years. He simply is not in a position to escape the effect of inflation. The financial position of the South African farmer has improved considerably in recent times because his livestock, his crops and other agricultural commodities have undoubtedly fetched better prices. However, owing to the fact that his requirements have increased and become more expensive—he requires more fertilizer to increase production and he requires costlier seed and costlier and better implements—these things are costing him more and more. As a result, the situation is that in spite of the improved agricultural prices, the farmer’s position could have been much better than it is owing to the sharply rising production costs. In addition, in the second place, we do not want to see shortages developing in this country. We should like to have surpluses of agricultural products to export in order to earn valuable foreign exchange for South Africa. Perhaps it is necessary, too, for us to see this Bill against the background of the fact that there was a stage when production costs were rising, but at a reasonable pace. Over the past four years, however, this increase has been dramatic and has become a factor giving rise to concern. I may just mention for the information of the House that in comparison with the position between June 1973 and June 1974, the production cost index figure in the case of fuel, for example, rose by 65% and this year it will be considerably more. In the case of fertilizer the increase has been 11% and this year, of course, it will be considerably more. In the case of spare parts, the increase was about 22% and in the case of tractors there was an increase of 15%. I mention these matters merely to indicate how necessary it is that we create new, additional and easier financing for our South African farmer. It is extremely expensive for the farmer to obtain operating capital through the ordinary channels. Consequently, assisting the farmer in the way envisaged in this legislation will also help to assist the country as a whole. It will put us in the position of having adequate agricultural supplies and of being able to retain those supplies on a reasonable price basis. The principle underlying the attitude of this side of the House is that of making it easier for the farmer to obtain the necessary capital, particularly on a short term basis. It will be interesting to note the attitude of other parties, excluding the governing party, to this third reading. The hon. members of the Reform Party and the Progressive Party said that they, too, would like to help the farmer of South, Africa. The strange thing is that they voted against the Second Reading of this Bill and, when they were unable to get their amendments in the Committee Stage passed by the House, they voted against the adoption of clause 3 as well. How, after this, they can boast of wanting to assist the farmer of South Africa by means of this legislation, is simply beyond me. How have they assisted the farmers in this regard? We know that special circumstances apply to the farmer and that his task is a special one. If those hon. members are as much in earnest as they make themselves out to be, I should like to hear from them whether they are now going to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill. We admit at once that there have been few farmers in the past who have received assistance in terms of the Land Bank Act and who have not been prepared to honour their commitments towards the Bank. This healthy situation is ascribable, in the first place, to the conservative attitude adopted by the Bank thus far and to the fact that it has carefully scrutinized every applicant. In the second place this is ascribable to the characteristic attitude of the South African farmer. When a farmer obtains money for bona fide farming purposes, he realizes that he has to honour his commitments. In my opinion the most important provisions in clause 3 are nothing new. They existed and were part of the Land Bank Act when it was consolidated in 1944. Hon. members can look at section 55 of the original Act— “the remedies of the Bank against defaulting debtors”—and they will find that it differs little from what we have here in clause 3. Farmers who apply for assistance under this new section 34 ought to be aware of the conditions on which they can receive loans or advances from the bank under these circumstances—the Land Bank will see to that. If they are not aware of this, the Bank will compel them to realize it. Other financial institutions in South Africa, too, will in time be brought to realize what the provisions of the new section 34 are and what demands they will be able to make when the farmers are assisted by the Land Bank.

Lastly, one must realize that the Land Bank’s funds are not unlimited. The Land Bank’s funds are used in rotation. This means that when a farmer has borrowed money and pays it back after a year or two, he enables the next man to borrow. Consequently, any farmer who borrows money from the Land Bank under this new provision must realize that he must not stand in the way of other farmers, but that he must honour his commitments. If a farmer is not prepared to honour his commitments—we know that such farmers are few—then he is not only abusing his privilege, viz. the privilege of having money at his disposal through the Land Bank, but he is also putting himself in the way of the next man who would like to make use of these facilities. For that reason I believe that this legislation is in the interests of the South African farmer and I am simply unable to understand how any party which is unwilling to support this legislation can boast of wanting to assist the farmers. Sir, such, a party will be called upon to explain its standpoint outside this House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the standpoint of the hon. member for Newton Park because he supports the Third Reading of this Bill. I want to point out that the South African Agricultural Union requested that this legislation be placed on the Statute Book. I once again want to stress the effect of this legislation, especially in regard of two kinds of loans. The first is the short term production loan which is supplied to the farmer in the form of a cash credit account. The effect of this legislation is that there is a change in connection with the security which the Land Bank demanded in the past. While it was the requirement in the past that the loan should be recorded in the Deeds Office, it will no longer be the case now. When the farmer wanted to negotiate a loan with the Land Bank and if there was a mortgage, he first had to obtain the permission of the mortgagee to have this loan recorded, and if the mortgagee refused permission, the farmer was unable to make use of that loan. The position is now being changed; the farmer no longer has to obtain the permission of the mortgagee to make use of that loan because the Land Bank only requires the farmer to sign a promissory note. The effect of this will be that a greater number of farmers will be able to make use of these short term production loans of the Land Bank. The hon. member for Newton Park is quite correct when he says that it will only be to the advantage of agriculture because Land Bank loans are one of the cheapest forms of financing the farmer can get What is more, Sir, the only change which is being made here is in connection with the security the farmer has to furnish. The procedure which was followed in the past is not being changed. Sir, the Land Bank has an irreproachable record in this regard. In its 63 years of existence no court has ever found it necessary to comment on the way in which the Land Bank has recovered these debts when farmers fell in arrears. What is more, the Land Bank has the reputation that it is very tolerant and very obliging and that it treats the farmers very well.

Sir, then there is the second kind of loan, and this is the hypothec loan. In the past the Land Bank required the farmers* animals or implements which were purchased by means of the loan to be marked, so that they could be identified subsequently. The animals had to be branded and the tractors and the implements had to be marked. This also becomes unnecessary now in terms of the new procedure which is being proposed. It will not be necessary for the farmer to have his property branded or marked. Sir, in the past farmers who made use of these loans was most unwilling to allow their cattle to be marked, and other farmers, as a result of the fact that the cattle had to be marked, decided not to make use of those loans. Because this procedure is now being changed more farmers will be able to make use of this advantageous facility, and therefore this legislation is important for agriculture, because if a farmer cannot make use of this facility, he approaches another financial institution for a loan. Sir, the financial institutions which are traditionally known to us as farmers, institutions such as the commercial banks and the insurance companies have rendered excellent service to agriculture. When the history of agriculture in South Africa is written, a monument will be erected for these financial institutions, because they made a gigantic contribution to agriculture. But, Sir, there are other financial institutions that appeared in later years, financial institutions which are not so well known to our farmers and which also entered the sphere of agricultural financing. The entry of those financial institutions was disastrous for farmers who made use of those financing facilities. I quoted you an example, Sir, from a previous debate and I should like to quote to you two further more examples now.

Here I have the case of a farmer who borrowed R57 900 from a financial institution with the name of Western Bank. On 15 November 1974 the farmer received a letter from Western Bank in which they informed him—

Then a few unimportant provisions were furnished, but then they told him—

The farmer accepted this offer and then, about a month later, he found out that a bond of R105 000 had been registered against his land, for this loan which amounted to R57 900. Then he made inquiries and asked Western Bank how it came about that such an enormous loan had been registered against his land. In reply he received the following letter (translation)—

You must remember, Sir, we are jumping now from 15 November to 18 February i.e. only a few months (translation)—

You must bear in mind, Sir, in the first letter which was addressed to this farmer, the interest was 7,2%—

But it does not end there. Then we find this little sentence—

Now they go further and say that the total debt, including provision for approved insurance, amounts to R135 353. Sir, from R57 900 to R135 000! Here is the summons. This farmer paid for a few months, and when he got in arrears he was sued for the amount of R130 962 and this happened to him six months and nineteen days after he negotiated the loan with these people. [Interjections.] This is the position that farmer is in. This farmer gave notice to dispute the claim. I believe the hon. members sitting in those benches will not understand this, because they do not know the farming community intimately, but we who know the farming community know that when a farmer receives a summons, it is the worst thing that can happen to him; the second worst thing is to appear in court. This is something our farmers want to have nothing to do with. [Interjections.]

Order! Does this concern a court case which is still being heard?

No, Sir, that has been settled and finalized. As I said, this farmer then gave notice to dispute the claim and I have good reason to believe that the case was settled for an amount less than he was sued for. But the point is that the utmost confidence between our farmers and the commercial banks. I am convinced of the fact that hon. members opposite side who are farmers, will agree with me. When I approach my commercial bank and they tell me I owe them a certain amount of money I would not even suspect that there is a mistake. They simply do not make mistakes, let alone take me to court, for me to convince them by means of the court that I do not owe them the sum for which they have sued me. Sir, this is an unheard of situation, and therefore I say it is of the utmost importance that it should be made possible for farmers not to be forced into the hands of financiers who undertake this kind of financing. This is not a healthy state of affairs as far as agriculture is concerned.

Sir, I want to quote another example. In the African Law Reports I find this case. In this case a farmer approached a financial institution with the name of Greater Services and borrowed R54 000. This happened in November 1973. Summons must have been issued against the farmer before September the following year, because on 18 September the case served before the court. The farmer was sued for R116 000, while he only borrowed R54 000.

Who are they?

I shall tell you presently. On a previous occasion I quoted the example of Premier Finance, and I have also quoted the example of Western Bank and Greater Services. There is considerable resemblance between the method of financing and the method of recovery of the debt by these three institutions. The first point of resemblance is that the amount owed by the farmers more than doubled within a year. The second point of resemblance is that all three institutions only required from the farmers to sign a promissory note. The third point of resemblance is that all three institutions required from the farmers to pay back their debts in the form of 120 monthly instalments. All three companies required from the farmers to take out insurance, and at the same company. I want to quote further from the case of Western Bank. They wrote to the farmer and informed him in which way his debts were calculated. The principal sum was R57 000 and the stamp, bond and insurance costs amounted to R32 000. This is a state of affairs one cannot defend. [Interjections.] These three institutions followed precisely the same method of financing.

I now want to come to the statement I made during the Committee Stage and in respect of which the hon. member for Yeoville replied to me. H said that my statement to the effect that Premier Finance is a subsidiary of Western Bank, was incorrect. This is so—Premier Finance is not a subsidiary of Western Bank. However, this is not the important point. The important point is that a strong association exists between those institutions. I have here in front of me the annual report of another public company. In this annual report it is stated that the company holds 74% of the shares in Premier and 53% directly and 3% indirectly of the shares in Western Bank. This is the company which controls them. I made some inquiries and ascertained that at least five directors of Western Bank are also directors of Premier. I ascertained that the registered head office of the two institutions have the same address, and that the auditors are also the same. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir. I want to point out further that Greater Services is a subsidiary of Premier. All these institutions are therefore chickens of the same hen; one chicken has in turn had another chicken. These chickens react the same way and their actions are also the same. I now want to draw certain conclusions. The farmers of South Africa asked for this legislation. Yet, the hon. member for Yeoville who does not represent a single farmer, said that the legislation should be rejected, because the farmers of South Africa do not know what is good for them.

He is a “boerehater”.

Mr. Speaker on, a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to call another hon. member a “boerehater”? [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon. member said that the hon. member was a “boerehater’?

The hon. member for Bethal.

In the light of the tone of the debate it is not permissible for an hon. member to refer to another hon. member as a “boerehater”. The hon. member for Bethal must therefore withdraw the expression.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Yeoville does not represent one single farmer, but yet he says the legislation should be rejected, because the farmers themselves do not know what is good for them; he knows what is good for them. If the examples which I quoted are the result of how he exerts himself for the farmers, the farmers can manage without his efforts. The hon. member had a great deal to say about the rule of law, but the examples which I quoted, also took place under the rule of Law. As an ordinary farmer I want to say that if I have to choose between the rule of law if this is what it looks like, and normal decency and fairness, I prefer the latter.

I want to conclude. It is not pleasant for me to become involved in a debate in this way. It is extremely unpleasant. That hon. member does not represent one single farmer, while I represent farmers. There were farmers who approached me and who were at their wits end and came to me for assistance. However, I was powerless, and for that reason I am pleading for the farmers whom I represent. It is not pleasant for me and I also want to tell the hon. member that I am not interested in his finances or in his person, but I am in fact interested in his financing methods and the way in which it affects the farmers. For that reason I shall fight for what is right and just for my voters, even if it is in the sewerage ditches.

Mr. Speaker, before I come back to the allegations made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who seems quite incapable of understanding how interest rates are calculated. I should like to return to the purpose of the Third Reading, which is to sum up the Bill which is before us. We on these benches have absolutely no objection to the Land Bank’s role nor to the part it plays in helping farmers, but I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the task of the Land Bank is primarily to lend money to farmers against security. Indeed, it has done so in large amounts at a subsidized rate of interest on the grounds that it is in the national interest. We have no objection to that but, as we have tried to make clear, we are very much against clause 3 for a number of reasons. Firstly, its provision take away a protection which was previously given to third parties by the requirement to notify the Registrar of Deeds, who then endorsed the title deeds. This gave the third party lenders, other than the Land Bank and the farmers, the other two parties, a certain protection. I do not think that it can be denied that this provision is being taken away by the present legislation. Secondly, when one looks at the wording of clause 3, one sees that there is a substantial diminution of the rights of third parties. This may be discretionary, but as we tried to point out during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, it is in no sense within the volition of the third parties. The only party which has the right to take the initiative is the Land Bank and not the farmer or any third party. I do not think that that can be denied in any way either. We have tried to convey to the hon. the Minister of Finance that our objections to this Bill arise out of three grounds, namely the confusion of criminal and civil law, the fact that it cuts across normal legal procedure, which is admitted in this Bill, and thirdly, that the Land Bank is setting itself up as a court in the sense of giving judgment in disputes where it is an interested party. The only justification which the hon. the Minister has given us so far is that all of these provisions were in the principal Act. Even on those grounds we cannot support it. We have now had the chance of going through the principal Act again. We asked him a question in the Committee Stage about the words “or shareholder” which, according to him, were in the principal Act. We want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he can answer this question for us because unfortunately we cannot find it.

I want to turn now to the allegations which have been made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Waterkloof. I do not wish to deal with the allegations in the sense of personality, because I shall leave that to the hon. member for Yeoville, but I do not want to leave unanswered allegations against either of the two companies which have been mentioned, Premier Finance and Western Bank. These companies now form part of the Anglo American group, although they were not a part of this group at the time about which the hon. member was talking. I do not wish to leave unanswered allegations of this nature against companies now inside a group with which I am connected. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who unfortunately is not here, acted as the lawyer on behalf of Mr. Jacobs, as I understand it. Unless I am proved wrong or unless he will confirm that I am wrong, that is how I understand the position.

Send for him.

I simply want to stick to the transaction in regard to Mr. Jacobs. I also want to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. I have a copy of the court’s judgment here and I am prepared to give it to the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Waterkloof in the hope that they will then understand that there are two ways of charging interest. One can either pay a certain sum annually or two parties can enter into a certain contract. If the hon. member for Lichtenburg, for instance, borrows R100 000 from, say, the Land Bank or some other party, he may enter into a contract to borrow that money for ten years at a specified rate of interest. There is no question of then going beyond the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. No doubt the hon. the Minister of Finance is well aware of this. There is no question of exceeding the maximum, but there are two ways of going about it. When a contract between two parties is entered into willingly, one can calculate the interest which will be paid over the ten years and one can then divide the total sum of capital plus interest by 120 months and then agree to pay 120th of the outstanding amount which includes both principal and interest. This is what happened in the case of Mr. Jacobs.

Let me come to the facts of the case of Mr. Jacobs. A firm of lawyers acting on his behalf made a request to borrow R70 000 for 10 year, which was secured by a first bond over the farm. On 4 September 1973 a loan of R67 500 was approved subject to a first bond being registered and subject to group life insurance. Mr. Jacobs signed a promissory note for R125 650-80 repayable over 121 months by way of 120 equal instalments.

Why has the hon. member for Lichtenburg left the House?

I am sure that anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic and of the way in which interest is charged will be able to see that this is a perfectly reasonable transaction. Then, on 14 January 1974 Mr. Jacobs failed to honour his obligation. He again failed to honour his obligation on 21 January, and so it goes on. Finally it was necessary to bring a case against him. There is one other very striking fact which the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Waterkloof simply omitted to state and that is that in terms of the law of this country if a man is in default…

When did I state anything?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg stated this and the hon. member for Waterkloof, by implication, associated himself with it last week.

I merely asked a question.

In terms of the law, people who effect a settlement in a judgment are entitled to a discount of 7½% per annum on the outstanding amount. That is calculated on a per annum basis. If the Minister of Finance lays down a maximum rate of interest of 12%, the effective rate of interest on the outstanding amount in terms of the judgment will simply be 4½% per annum which is a substitution for the damages to the man who having lent the money for 10 years, was repaid earlier.

Nonsense! What damage was there?

You may read the statement for yourself. In terms of this Mr. Jacobs, who was named by the hon. member for Lichtenburg—I am glad to see he has finally come back—was entitled to a rebate of R33 379, if he settled. Once the hon. member for Lichtenburg has taken the trouble to read the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal—and we shall certainly send him a copy—and has consulted his colleague, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke who acted on behalf of Mr. Jacobs, as I have said, I hope he will have the decency to stand up and withdraw the allegations against two public companies which are acting in a perfectly legal and normal business way.

And apologize.

Can the hon. member tell the House whether the rebate which Mr. Jacobs was entitled to was mentioned in the summons when he was sued?

Presumably the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke was quite capable of advising Mr. Jacobs of this rights. I wish to quote from a letter from Messrs. Van der Walt and Marais to Premier Finance Corporation in which the following statement appears—

I cannot answer the hon. member’s question because I do not have the facts available. All I can say is that the assumption is that he was in constant touch with his lawyers and therefore presumably was fully aware of his rights.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take part in the clash which took place between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Lichtenburg. However, I should like to refer to a few aspects only. Clause 3 of this Bill makes it possible for the Land Bank to provide our farmers with financing more expeditiously and over a wider field, especially as regards middle term and short term financing. In recent years the position in which the financial institutions found themselves was such, because of the conversion of short term agricultural financing into medium term financing and even into long term financing, that they were not particularly interested in agricultural financing. To prove this statement of mine, I should like to refer to the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa, called the Franzsen Commission. I quote (translation)—

That is why clause 3 of this Bill, which makes provision for inserting a new section 34 into the Act, is particularly important as it creates improved financing possibilities for the agricultural industry in general. For the very reason of the decreased interest in agricultural financing from the side of normal financing companies, a vacuum has developed somewhere in the matter of agricultural financing. The very organizations and financing companies to which the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred, are the ones that entered this field and abused the situation, viz. the grey market in which hon. members on that side evidently have a share. We as members on this side of the House are particularly grateful for the fact that our farmers welcome in this legislation, and we can state this with great pleasure. The Land Bank will in fact be able to play a bigger role. In many countries which we visited recently, where we looked into agriculture in general and into marketing, etc., special provision is made, by means of special methods, for agricultural financing because the conditions in respect of the agricultural industry are different to those of the other sectors of our economy. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House possibly do not know this because they speak as though they know nothing about agriculture. This has become very clear in the course of this debate. Therefore we welcome this amending legislation and we gladly support the motion of the hon. the Minister at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the important issue that one should remember, is that this is a piece of legislation which in the first place is intended to assist farmers in order to obtain certain facilities with greater ease. In the second place, it contains measures which clearly by-pass the courts. In the third place, it clearly prejudices other creditors. On this premise, we argue the case in this House. We argue the case on its merits and we believe that the assistance should be given to farmers. We believe, however, that assistance can be given to farmers without by-passing the courts and without prejudicing other creditors. One would have imagined that that argument would have been replied to on its merits and that hon. members opposite would have said that they do not agree with our point of view. What has been remarkable is that the hon. member for Lichtenburg apparently decided to choose this particular occasion to endeavour to indulge in some form of character assassination in order to turn away from the real issues and in order to distract from what the real issues are. For that reason one has to reply to the issue. The weakness of a case which any person puts up, is demonstrated when such person has to avoid the issue which is before the House and endeavour to smear a character. I have little doubt in my mind that if the hon. member could have referred to a financial institution with which he would not have been able to associate a member on this side of the House, he would never have done so. If the hon. member would bother to look into what actually are the records of the court, and to look into banking practices, he would find that the practices which have been engaged in by these particular companies are by no means unique to these institutions. Financial institutions of all sorts, with which hon. members on that side of the House are very closely and intimately associated, have the same kind of procedures, but they choose this one not to do harm to that institution directly but because it is alleged that I, for one, have an association with it.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I do not say that they are wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right. The hon. member for Waterkloof’s lack of commercial knowledge is only equalled by his lack of knowledge of the law. He should not show it in this House. One of the things which is disastrous is that if the position is to arise where a businessman, whether he be a banker, a financier or whether he be a professional man, cannot come to Parliament without this kind of attack being made on him, then even more one will find that people of standing in the business community will say:” What do I want to come here for in order to indulge in this kind of mud-slinging?” This is a disservice which goes far beyond anything which relates to a particular member of this House. This brings the whole attitude which is displayed in this House into the public view, so that businessmen, people of repute and people of standing, will say to themselves that they certainly do not want to become involved in this kind of activity. In this way these people will be scared away.

I want to deal specifically with the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In the first place, let me say, that I have no objection to defending myself in this House; but the hon. member brought the names of institutions that are innocent into the picture. When I asked the hon. member to give me the names and the details of this matter by way of a note, he refused to do so and he said in this House that he had a reason why he refused to do so. The reason of the hon. member is a very patent one, viz. that here in this House he speaks with privilege. Here in this House he does not have to worry as to whether somebody can sue him when he says something which is defamatory. The hon. member admitted that be was not prepared to take the risk of being sued for defamation by answering my note and putting it on record.

The hon. member should have the courage and be prepared to say without privilege what he is prepared to say with privilege because when you actually shelter under privilege your whole credibility must be brought into question by the public. This is fundamental to the hon. member. What did the hon. member specifically say, and what is the truth of it? Firstly, he said that Premier Finance was a subsidiary of Western Bank, but he has now admitted that he told an untruth. What is even more significant is that he was prepared to make this kind of allegation without any form of investigation at that stage. The most fundamental and easy investigation would have demonstrated the falsity of the statement that he made.

That is a technical point.

If it is a technical point to tell a lie, it is so in the hon. member’s philosophy but not in mine.

To whom was the hon. member referring when he mentioned the word “lie”? I could not hear that.

I said that if it is a technical thing to tell a lie, it is not a technical thing to me.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw the word “lie”. To the hon. member it is a technical thing to tell an untruth. To me it is not. It is important.

That is a technical defence.

It is not a technical defence. I would like to show the lack of credibility that has to be attached to the hon. member for Lichtenburg as well as to his associates.

Who are his associates?

I am coming to his associates, of whom the hon. member who put the question is one. The second point is that the hon. member mentioned that the loan was R60 000. He did this to exaggerate. He now knows that the truth is that the loan was in fact R72 000—an error of a mere R12 000, another technical error, a mere R12 000 technical error. The hon. member said that the farmer had to pay interest in less than a year, “minder as ’n jaar”, and that he was called upon to pay ten years’ interest in advance. Those are the words the hon. member used, and we can quote them. The truth is that the farmer was not called upon to pay ten years’ interest in advance at any stage. Again, this is a technical fact of not telling the truth. Either the hon. member knew that what he was saying was not the truth, or, if he did not know it, he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That is not the behaviour of a member of Parliament.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I will answer all the questions the hon. member wants to ask me with the greatest of pleasure.

Does the hon. member deny that Mr. Jacobs was sued for R129 000?

This is the very issue. The cardinal issue is that the hon. member knows, and knew it today when he asked the question, that that in fact represented ten years’ interest which the farmer would not have had to pay if he had paid then, but would have had to pay if he had paid at the end of the ten-year period. That is the whole truth. The hon. member sitting there knows it. He knew it today when he asked the question.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I would like to finish my speech, but I will answer any questions after I have finished. The hon. member knows that that is not correct, and yet he made those inquiries. The hon. member then said: “Hulle het eenvoudig ’n vendusie gehou.” In other words, they held an auction and sold the farmer out. Again this was an untruth. The man was in fact sued, he was written letters and there was a judgment before a sale. What makes this even worse is that one of the hon. member’s colleagues—and the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to it—not only acted for him in respect of the letters that were given to him and the summons that was served on him; this colleague, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, was actually the person who negotiated the loan. He negotiated the terms. The guarantee was issued to his firm. [Interjection.] He negotiated the terms, which is what the hon. member is complaining about. He was the man who was instrumental in arranging the terms. He was fully aware of the terms. In spite of this hon. members now come along with the story that this is something which they do not know about. The hon. member sits there knowing full well that his colleague is involved in this. He knows full well that his colleague negotiated this and then he has the impertinence to try to smear another man with this transaction.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “smear”.

I withdraw the word “smear”, Sir. What is even more significant, Sir, is that after the last time that this matter was debated in this House, State officials were used in order to find out the facts concerning my association in this matter. Officials of the Government were used…

By whom?

I want to know that from the hon. the Minister who gave the instructions. The Minister knows who they are. I do not bandy people’s names about, but if you want to have an inquiry into this, let us have an inquiry. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should be moderate with their interjections. Hon. members are unreasonable now.

Sir, the instructions came from Cape Town, from an official in the Department of Finance. They were given to Pretoria and inquiries were then made. But what is even more interesting is that nobody has been prepared to say what was the result of these inquiries, except for one thing, and that is the reference which was made to a holding company, nobody has said, however, that it was established that not only was this not a subsidiary but that I was not a director of Premier Finance; that I was not a shareholder of Premier Finance, and that it was established that I was not a director of the holding company either. Sir, all these things were established, yet the hon. member still persists in giving the House this impression. I want to say, with great respect, that when this sort of behaviour is indulged in by the hon. member, he should very seriously take a look at himself and his right to speak in this House with any degree of credibility. But, Sir, let us go further. The hon. member now decides that his case in respect of Premier Finance was no good, that in fact it was a dud and that his facts cannot be substantiated, so he raises two other matters, without having the courtesy to tell one beforehand that he is going to raise these matters so that one can check up in advance to see whether he is telling the truth or not. He does not mention the names of the people concerned sufficiently to enable one to identify them. He only makes general allegations, and again it is quite apparent that he wishes to create the impression in this House that when you calculate 10 years’ interest, it represents one year’s interest. Sir, that impression is undoubtedly an incorrect impression and one which is calculated to mislead and to bring certain institutions into disrepute.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not going to answer questions now. If I have time at the end of my speech I am prepared to answer questions. Sir, I say to the hon. member: Give me the details of the case; I will then look into it and see whether there is any truth in these allegations. The hon. member cannot make vague accusations here and expect people to believe him, because in the case of the one allegation made by him, where we were able to check up, we were able to prove that this allegation was utterly untrue. Sir, let me go further. The allegation is now made that I am in some way associated with or responsible for these loans. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with these loans or that I have to excuse the companies which made them, because I think it is quite apparent, if you look at the provisions of section 6(1) of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act and bear in mind the fact that 10 years’ interest is allowed, that the hon. member is creating an entirely wrong impression here. Sir, I want to make my position clear so that financial institutions will not be prejudiced in their business because of my being in this House. In the first place I want to point out that I went into a company called Western Issuing House in 1969. That company’s name then became Western Merchant Bank and a subsidiary of Western Bank. I was the managing director of that merchant bank and I was a director of Western Bank.

My responsibility in the two banks related to merchant banking and did not relate to the day-to-day running of the bank, nor was I concerned with loans and advances by the bank, which were the responsibility of the managing director of that bank. My only involvement was to receive the reports of the bank’s trading activities at board meetings, or on isolated occasions when specific clients approached me in regard to facilities. Some of those clients are sitting in this House, I may say. These were then referred to and dealt with in conjunction with the staff whose responsibility these matters were. The exception to this was a mortgage participation company which is not involved here, and in which I participated more actively. When problems arose in respect of specific matters I might be brought into it. Sir, my responsibility as an executive concerned with merchant banking, or as an executive at all, ceased early in the year 1974, when I accepted nomination for Parliament. I resigned as a director of Western Bank, and of all its subsidiaries in April of this year. I gave up my executive position at the beginning of 1974. In discharging my responsibilities as a director of the bank, I naturally sought, as did the other directors, to ensure that its business was conducted in a lawful and in an ethical manner. I am not suggesting for one moment that somewhere there may not be something which may not have been correct, because that can happen in any institution, and in fact it happens in institutions. But I want to say that I am not aware of the instance alleged, and if I was aware of it I would have dealt with it. I am, however, not satisfied that any single instance has been mentioned where there can be an allegation that something wrong has been done by either Western Bank or any other institution that has been mentioned. Sir. I want to say again that you cannot have a situation where businessmen are brought into disrepute in this manner, where in fact public companies are brought into disrepute to try and gain a particular piece of political advantage under the shelter of privilege, and where in fact the institution has no ability to defend itself because it is not even given sufficient information to check on it. When they are given the information, the untruthfulness of the allegation can then clearly be exposed, as was done in the case of Premier Finance. Now, Sir, I promised the hon. member that I would answer questions. If he wants to put the question now, I will answer him.

Order! Before allowing the question, the hon. member used the expression “calculated to mislead”. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “calculated”. It had the effect of misleading.

May I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the following words appearing in the judgment of Burger, J., in the matter of Greater Services (Pty.) Ltd. vs. Du Toit, reported in the South African Law Reports, 1975(1), where the following was said…

Order! The hon. member must merely say in effect what its purport is.

May I say, to assist the hon. member, that I had nothing to do with greater Services and I know nothing about the case.

This is the first part of my question. I now come to the second part of my question. It is very short, and I would rather read it.

Order! The hon. member must say what the effect of the judgment is.

For an actual advance of R54 220-90 on 1 November 1973, judgment for R116121-78 plus interest thereon from January 1974 was claimed. Somewhere something is wrong. Does the hon. member deny …

Order!

If I may have the Law Report, Sir, I shall deal with it. I do not know whether it is in context or out of context.

Order! I am not prepared to allow this type of question and reply any further.

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not true that Jacobs, after borrowing R72 000 only a year before, was sued for R129 000, and that the summons actually stated that he must pay that amount of R129 000 immediately. Can the hon. member tell us whether that is the situation?

The hon. member, by reason of his association with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, should be able to ask him that question, because if anybody had to complain about there having been a loan negotiated that was wrong, or a judgment having been given against Mr. Jacobs that was wrong, that is the responsibility of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I was not the attorney in that case and I know nothing about it. All I can tell you, Sir, is that I happen to know the law, and the law is that in terms of section 6(1) of the Act there is a rebate of 7½%. As you know, Sir, if the amount of interest is for a period in advance, he is entitled to that. Whether that is in the summons or not, he is still entitled to it and the full Bench of the Transvaal, consisting of Mr. Justice Coleman, Mr. Justice Mostert and Mr. Justice Hiemstra, have held that. The hon. member should be aware of that, so his question is both irrelevant and frivolous.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the allegations made by the hon. member for Yeoville, but to begin with I must point out that I have no shares in, nor am I a director of Western Bank, Premier Finance or any other banking institution. In fact, I do not receive any financial benefit from the profits of any banking company in this country. Consequently I am speaking solely in my capacity as a representative of my constituency. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville; I want to be very fair towards him, because I know that he is going through a very difficult time at present. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Yeoville said that the statement by my hon. colleague, the member for Lichtenburg, that one Jan Harm Steenkamp was summonsed by Western Bank for the full interest payable for the unexpired term of the loan is not true. My hon. colleague mentioned the amount of R129 000. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that what he states is an untruth, that it is not true. I want to quote from case No. 278/74 heard by the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court, viz. the case between Jan Harm Steenkamp and Western Bank Ltd. It is stated that Jan Harm Steenkamp “hereinafter called the defendant … is hereby called upon immediately to pay to Western Bank Ltd. an amount of…”. My hon. colleague was wrong—the amount he mentioned was R1 000 too low. The actual amount was R130 962-77”.

But what about it?

But the hon. member for Yeoville maintained that the hon. member for Lichtenburg had made an untrue statement, but this is the truth. The hon. member for Yeoville can ascertain that this is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

Is the hon. member for Lydenburg prepared to reply to a question?

Yes, certainly.

Did I say that he was telling an untruth in respect of the Western Bank matter or did I say that he was telling an untruth in respect of Premier Finance?

I refer to the hon. member’s allegation in so far as Steenkamp is concerned. My hon. colleague mentioned the case of Steenkamp.

Order! I am of the opinion that this aspect, which is hot really relevant, has now been sufficiently debated from all sides and consequently the hon. members must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the Bill I should like to say that certain principles relating to long-term loans are incorporated in the Land Bank Act and that the principles in accordance with which the bank obtained security have now been extended to short and medium term financing. The Land Bank Act is being amended to give the bank the right to take action against a debtor. In this regard I refer in particular to the proposed section 34. The hon. members for Johannespurg North and Yeoville raised very serious objections to the powers which the bank was now acquiring. With reference, inter alia, to the issue of imprisonment without the option of a fine, the hon. member for Johannesburg North stated that the bank could act and call up a debtor’s loan. Reference was also made to the case of a director of a farming company being imprisoned without the option of a fine and it was suggested that in terms of this provision the bank, when it has lent money to a farmer and that farmer drives a car under the influence of liquor and as a result is imprisoned without the option of a fine, would be able to call up the loan immediately. I find it very strange that those two hon. members should be so concerned about what the Land Bank will do. When one considers the Bill itself, one sees that the Land Bank board can call up a loan when, for example, a person is imprisoned without the option of a fine. Here a discretion is being placed in the hands of the Land Bank Board, and one has to ask oneself what the Land Bank Board is going to do with those powers. That depends on their approach and their attitude towards the farming community. I think that we should form a judgment of those powers which are being acquired by the board.

I want to ask those two hon. members why they are so concerned that the Land Bank may ruin the farmers. The hon. members have only to show me one case of the Land Bank doing to the farmers what Western Bank and Premier Finance did to the farmers. The difference is that the Land Bank is a body whose aim it is to assist and carry the farmers, and I shall prove that to hon. members. For the sake of interest, and to prove that my statement is correct, I want to mention to hon. members the overdue capital amounts owed by farmers to the Land Bank. In 1969 an amount of R4,6 million in interest was overdue. In the years following the amounts were, respectively, R5,9 million, R6,3 million etc. until 1973 when the amount was R5,7 million. Between 1969 and 1973 the overdue capital owing to the Land Bank varied as follows: R2,9 million, R3,6 million, R4,1 million, R4,4 million and R4,6 million. The Land Bank did not try to ruin the farmers who were in arrears with their payments. They give these people time and opportunity to recover. To me it is very important that the Land Bank is merciful and does not stick to the letter of the law, but acts in a spirit of mercy, a favourable attitude and support of a farmer who has perhaps found himself in difficulties. What is the alternative? We know that in the past, many farmers have been unable to make use of this finance because their mortgagees were not prepared to allow an entry against the contract in the case of a cash credit account. We know, too, that many farmers simply did not see their way clear to making use of medium-term finance for cattle and machinery, owing to the brands or punch marks that were on these items. My reason for saying that this is a sound piece of legislation is the fact that it is now being made possible for the farmer to obtain money without being subjected to humiliations. Let us now consider the alternative course open to a farmer if he is unable to borrow money from the Land Bank. The farmer is then forced to borrow money from other bodies. That is where our problems arise, and that is where the farmer causes himself a great deal of grief. My hon. colleague for Lichtenburg mentioned the very unfortunate circumstances experienced by Farmers in the past owing to their having borrowed money from such bodies. Looking at West Bank’s case against Mr. Jan Harm Steenkamp, I cannot but avail myself of this opportunity of informing the farmers and the public at large that they must be very careful when they do business with these institutions because they are running the risk of being ruined entirely by these banking institutions. They are also running the risk of being misled by these banking institutions and provided with false information.

That is nonsense.

I shall prove my nonsense. The essence of this Bill is that it creates alternative financing facilities for the farmers, facilities which protect them from being exploited and misled by banking institutions such as Western Bank. The hon. member states that I am talking nonsense when I say that they misled the farmers and give them false information. I want to emphasize that I am not referring to worthy and respected commercial banks of status and prestige such as Volkskas, Barclays Bank, Standard Bank and others. These institutions have been of invaluable service to the farming community. To come back to this case again, I want to illustrate the point I made that farmers are being misused and misled when they do not do business with the Land Bank. I want to refer to the Supreme Court case No 4278/1974 against Jan Harm Steenkamp. This poor farmer wrote a letter to the bank on 15 November 1974 in which be asked what the interest was. They replied that the loan amounted to R57 000 and that the interest was 7,2% per annum. These are facts; it is stated here in black and white. Now the hon. member for Yeoville must not tell me that I am talking nonsense. The bank’s letter is dated 14 November 1973, a letter on the letterhead of West Bank. At the time the hon. member was still a director.

Order. I have already ruled that hon. members must confine themselves to the Bill.

Without referring to this case or to specific banks, the fact of the matter is that the Land Bank provides the farmer with long-term finance at 7%. Now I have a case here of a private body intimating that it would lend money to the farmer at 7,2%. Later, however, the same bank wrote to the farmer concerned to the effect that the interest was 12%. I simply cannot see the Land Bank, having once told a farmer in writing that his interest would be 6%, later informing him in writing that the interest was in fact 12%.

The alternative financing possibilities for the farmer if the Land Bank does not provide the finance, constitute a dangerous method of financing. What is the fact of the matter? The argument was advanced today that if a person borrowed money from a financial institution with whom he had concluded an agreement in terms of which that loan was repayable monthly in 120 equal instalments, and the borrower failed to pay, the company could claim from him the full amount, interest plus capital, payable up to the expiration of the loan period, as occurred in the case to which I have referred. I just want to point out that if a farmer negotiates a loan which he has to repay in equal instalments and then fails to pay that amount, he is summonsed for the outstanding interest. Now we have section 6(1) of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, which provides that if a borrower repays the amount at an early stage, he is entitled to a rebate of 7,5% on the outstanding interest. The fact is that the interest rate laid down was 12% and is now 14%. If the borrower should fail to pay for one month, he would immediately be summonsed and held responsible for the balance of the interest less 7,5%. In effect, this means that the person concerned would still have to continue paying 4½% interest on money he did not possess. Now that the interest rate has been increased to 14% he will have to pay 6½% interest on money which, in point of fact, he neither possesses nor has used. I want to discuss this matter very seriously and draw the Minister’s attention to this specific matter because my argument in this regard is valid. I think that I am here in good company. I want to refer to an irregularity which does in fact fall within the pale of the law. However, in the case of Western Bank v. Josef George Hammond, Mr. Justice Mostert and the full bench of the provincial division had the following to say about clause 6(1) of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act—

in other words, the period of the loan—

Then the judge goes on to say—

The judge went on to say—

I want to address a serious warning to the farming community about this. If they borrow money from anyone and were to be in default once as regards repayment, they would be acting contrary to that promissory note. They are then taken to court and summonsed for the full amount. They can request a rebate in terms of clause 6(1) of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, but in fact they remain responsible for 6½%, and that is why the loans of so many farmers are called up by certain financial institutions with the result that those farmers are ruined. I regard it as being in the public interest that this fact be made known. I just want to refer those people who have already had such unfortunate experiences, and who have paid the full amount in order to stay out of trouble, to section 7 of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. I say this for the information of people who have already almost been ruined by certain institutions. What this section amounts to is that any borrower who has been bought out in this way still has the right, if he has not received that 7½% rebate, to go back to court within three years of the date of sentence and claim that 7½% from that financial institution. I should like to bring this point to the attention of our farmers because we know that many of them have already had this unfortunate experience.

I want to conclude by saying that there is still only one place for a farmer to borrow money. He can borrow money from other places, too, which also act within the pale of the law. However, I have a Christian conscience and my Christian conscience towards women, children and dependants does not allow me to use the law to its limit. Although still operating within the law, I as a Christian person cannot sell out people who have negotiated loans in ignorance and good faith. For that reason I say that we should pass the Second Reading because the Land Bank is the farmers’ guarantee against exploitation. Some of our farmers who have been sold out by bodies such as the one of which the hon. member for Yeoville is a director and which falls under the control of one of the companies of the hon. member for Johannesburg North were saved by the Land Bank at the last moment in that it assisted them to get by.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I have seldom been so disgusted by the behaviour of certain members of this House. We have this tirade… [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not prepared to comment on it, because I do not know the facts.

Order! The hon. member must speak up.

The objective is quite clear. It is to try to discredit the hon. member for Yeoville. I think hon. members should remember that at the time the hon. member for Yeoville was involved, in his business career, he was raising tens of millions of rands for South Africa and was in no way involved in making loans to farmers or anyone else. I think that it is an important point to remember. The other aspect which occurs to me is that in the last session we were told about a very generous offer which had been made to the Government by the Schlesinger family who were prepared to sell the Zebediela Estate very cheaply to the Government. It was then necessary to rush through certain legislation through this House.

Order! Can the hon. member explain, to me what that has to do with this Bill?

Sir, I am replying to the allegations of the hon. member for Lichtenburg and others. I think it is a point that should be remembered. I come back to this legislation and I think it is important that we should again, for the record, state what our attitude is. We are in favour that everything should be done by the Land Bank to make credit available to farmers on promissory notes. What we are against, is the sting in the tail, i.e. that they lend the farmers the money but that there are all sorts of conditions they probably do not know about because they are conditions which are not applied by any of the normal financial institutions. They are not applied by banks, nor by insurance companies. It would in fact be illegal to impose those conditions. Because this Government is so cynical about the farmers and because they believe that these people have very little commercial knowledge, they are prepared to put into this Act Draconian measures which no other section of the population would tolerate. That is what is in this Act and that is why we are against it.

But you are insulting the farmers by saying that.

There must be no misunderstanding about this, we must get it absolutely clear. Under this Act as it is today, more damage can be caused to the farming community than by any other lending institution, because with any other lending institution, the farmer has, firstly, the protection of the law and, secondly, the protection of his lawyer but under this he has no protection under the law whatsoever and is subject to all these Draconian measures which are here. My advice to the farming community of South Africa is very simple. That is, if the Government comes along to the farming community with concessions or bearing gifts, they should inspect it and turn it over at least four times and they should remember the saying: “Beware the Greeks bearing gifts.” Because that is what it is in terms of this piece of legislation.

When we come to the attitude of the official Opposition, it is a tragedy. The official Opposition has completely discarded any concern for the rule of law and they have also discarded any concern for the farming community in this respect. We know about the Draconian measures which are here, but then we have the hon. member for Griqualand East and when this hon. member referred to the measures which are contained here, he said, and I quote from this Hansard—

It might be so that the hon. member’s concern is that he has realized that the United Party will soon be the third party; I am not sure. The point is that we on these benches are concerned on account of the farmer. [Interjections.] We do not say that the farmer is asking for it and if anything happens, it should be on his own head. We insist in the name of the farming community that they have the protection of the rule of law and that this is not simply removed from them because it does not suit hon. members on that side of the House.

I want to say only one thing and that is that the Government has great credibility among the farming community and the farming community trusts the Government, but if they carry on introducing legislation of this sort, they will lose that credibility and support and quite rightly so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this stage to return briefly to the provisions of the Bill, and to clarify one or two points, especially as they might have reference to the official Opposition. First of all, the hon. member for Johannesburg North had some difficulty in finding a provision in the existing law. I take the opportunity of indicating to him that it was an amendment adopted by this House in 1972.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; is an hon. member entitled to say to another hon. member, “You are a bloody big jaw?”

Mr. SPEAKER! Order! Did the hon. member say that?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said I was a Chicago gangster… [Interjections.]

Order! Both hon. members must withdraw those remarks, and they can then shoot it out outside the House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member had threatened like a Chicago gangster.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my remark. May I add that I want to shoot it out outside.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, to return to the matter upon which I was addressing you, the present legislation provides, in respect of hypothec loans, that these are recoverable in the event of the imprisonment or insolvency of a shareholder of a company. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is perhaps not aware of the fact that in 1972 a new definition of “farmer” was introduced, which gave certain additional rights to farming companies, in that they could enjoy benefits under the Land Bank Act. For that reason it became necessary to make provision for shareholders as well.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that whilst the principle of advances to farmers was approved, a loan should be made possible without bypassing the courts. The position is that a loan agreement creates a contractual or personal relationship between a lender and a borrower. The terms are agreed upon. I do not want to go into what we have been hearing this afternoon, but there has been a great deal of litigation which was based on terms that were agreed upon between a borrower and a lender. That, I understood from the hon. member for Yeoville, was his justification for the action taken by these finance companies. In the present case, this Bill says that when a farmer borrows, he signs a promissory note. He is then liable to pay what is determined by the Land Bank at any time to be the balance of his account. He places himself in the hands of the Land Bank. This is a position which applies in respect of any commercial bank in the case of overdraft facilities. I do not see how it can be regarded as a matter in which the courts are by-passed if a man places himself in that position. We have made it clear to the hon. the Minister—and he has been good enough to say that the matter is still under consideration—that what we are concerned about are the rights of concurrent creditors in the event of the loan being called up and execution being levied against the assets of the debtor. That is still our position. We believe that that is what is wrong in the procedural provisions of this Bill, but it is not a matter which we believe should be utilized to torpedo the very valuable assistance which is to be made available to farmers under this particular Bill. This is being done at the request of the agricultural unions, and for that reason we support the Third Reading of this measure. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member who has just sat down that this has something to do with the rule of law, but we are dealing here with the question of a contractual arrangement and a levy of execution when there may be some conflicting claims between creditors in respect of assets or funds becoming available from a deed of sale. I merely wished to point that out, Mr. Speaker, and to say that we support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that we have had quite an interesting debate on this measure, a measure which I described as an innocent one last week. I still believe that it is an innocent measure, but in spite of this the debate became rather heated at times this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the official Opposition for the attitude they are adopting. I think this is a very important measure, as I have already said. The speech made here by the hon. member for Newton Park was a speech which might also have been made from this side of the House. This applies to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point as well. However, we do differ about one aspect which he mentioned when he spoke of the right of concurrent creditors. In the Committee Stage, and, if I remember correctly, during the Second Reading debate as well, I assured the hon. member that I was looking into this matter. Sir, I think that when all is said and done in this regard, two very important tests remain which I find very convincing. In the first place I think one should ask oneself who requested this legislation. The Land Bank requested it, the body in the Republic which is more close concerned in this matter then any other financial institution in the country. Sir, the Land Bank speaks from 63 years’ experience. I know of no single case throughout those 63 years in which the Land Bank was accused of having exploited a farmer in any way. This is the body which requested this legislation; I think it is very important to bear this in mind.

In the second place, I think, one should ask oneself what the attitude is of that part of our community which is directly affected by this legislation every day of the week, namely the farming community. The reply to this is that the farmers very strongly support this measure. I think that we should keep this in mind in discussing this matter. We should keep in mind, too, that this legislation was requested by the Land Bank, which has played such, a major part in the agricultural industry of South Africa in the past, for without the funds which the bank made available to the farmers over a period of 63 years, the agricultural industry would not have been where it is today; the picture would have been quite different. With the assistance we are now going to give the Land Bank by accepting the provisions of this Bill, I think the part played by the Land Bank is going to be even greater and more important in the future, to the benefit, not only of the farmers of South. Africa, but of the Republic as a whole. It is not necessary for me to emphasize here how important agriculture is for the South African economy, for it is absolutely basic.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred again to the words “or shareholders” in this Bill. The hon. member for Green Point has explained how this has come about. I would just like to refer the hon. member for Johannesburg North to Act No. 13 of 1944, which is the relevant Act. If the hon. member will look at section 55(l)(gB), he will find that it says—

That paragraph has been taken over word for word in the Bill before us. Sir, the hon. member says that this Bill cuts across normal legal procedure. I completely disagree with that statement, as I said at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. Sir, I would like to be as brief as I can.

The hon. member for Yeoville got rather hot under the collar, and he made an accusation, as I thought, against me that officials have been used to make certain inquiries in regard to this Bill. Now, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Yeoville that yesterday afternoon a farmer told me he had seen in the Press that there was this reference to Premier Finance and its alleged relationship to Western Bank, and he asked me whether Premier Finance was a subsidiary of Western Bank. I said I did not know, but that I would find out, and I asked a member of my department to check up. I would like to say that I have not even yet heard the answer, so it had no part in my discussion in this House of this Bill because, as I say, as at this moment he has not yet brought me the answer. Now, what is wrong with my asking a member of my department, or any other department, or anybody inside or outside the Public Service, to try to answer a question of fact? The hon. member gets up in this House time and again at question time and puts questions to Ministers, and we have to go to officials to obtain the answers. He is making use of the same facilities.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If there was a request by a farmer yesterday, how is it that officials made the inquiries already on Friday last week?

In that case, that inquiry had nothing whatsoever to do with me. I came into the picture yesterday afternoon and I can prove that with the greatest of ease at any time. If there was any other inquiry before yesterday afternoon, it had nothing to do with me. That is the position, but the hon. member was accusing me, and I do not know what he was accusing me of. I think this is going a little bit far.

State officials were being used for political purposes.

I take the strongest exception to the insinuation underlying that statement. I think it does no credit to that hon. member whatsoever, the way he has put it.

I did not say by you.

May the hon. member refer to the hon. the Minister as “you”?

Order!

I do not want to talk about this issue which was raised. The hon. member for Lichtenburg has a perfect right to raise these matters in this House. If he has information which disturbs him about these matters, why should he not raise it here? This is the place to raise it. I think the hon. member for Yeoville must be a little more calm.

Particularly if it is untrue.

No, that was answered. The hon. member read his reply here. That is what happened. You get counter-arguments the whole time, but I do not think the hon. member must go so far as to bring the Public Service and State officials into this matter. That is quite unfair. I want to say this, without casting reflections on anybody or on any institution, and without wishing to express an opinion on the merits of the actual issues raised in regard to these particular institutions, because I do not know the details, I merely say that listening to the facts which were given here today, it does occur to me, as a third party standing, as it were, outside the issue itself, that there are in some of these instances enormous disparities between the original loan and what seems to have been claimed subsequently. That is the impression I have, listening to this debate, that there are enormous discrepancies, discrepancies of an order which you will never be able to prove in the case of the Land Bank. Now, I would like to put that case to the House. How is it that these things are never raised when you are dealing with the Land Bank? There are never these enormous discrepancies. That is why I say: Let the Land Bank look after the farmers of South Africa, and to the extent it can do so, let us make their task as easy as we can, basing this on the long experience of two generations which this bank has in the specialized field, because it is a specialized field. That is the position as I see it. You know, Sir, listening to the hon. member for Johannesburg North and to the hon. member for Yeoville, I cannot help speculating, when this marriage finally takes place, who is going to be the chief spokesman on finance. [Interjections.] The more we discuss these matters, the more intrigued I get by the answer to that question. It is going to be very interesting. It may be that they will have a sort of twin spokesmen arrangement, but I do not know how long that will last. [Interjections.]

Then the hon. member for Randburg trotted out what has become the in-phrase in these matters, i.e. that if you do not like something, you call it “Draconian”. I wonder if the hon. member really knows what “Draconian” means in regard to this Bill. Judging from what he had to say, I have some doubt. However, I really think that the hon. member for Randburg and, indeed, the spokesmen for his party and for his hon. friends sitting alongside him, have missed the whole philosophy of farming and of the farmer in this country. I think they have completely missed the basis on which the farmer operates in this country. As far as the relationship between the farmer and the Land Bank is concerned, the relationship is one of utmost good faith— it is as high as that; Utmost good faith. That is what we want to maintain.

May I ask a question? If the relationship is one of utmost good faith, why then is it necessary to have the provisions of the proposed section 34(3)?

If the hon. member would look at it objectively, he would see that it is completely in conformity with what I have said. You do not need more than a promissory note between the farmer and the Land Bank precisely because that relationship is of such a high order. That is why. This is all I really want to say.

*I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House for their contributions. I think we are greatly indebted to the hon. member for Lydenburg for having given us such a lucid explanation of how difficult the circumstances can be for a farmer if he is dealing with an institution that wants to exploit him. It is precisely to avoid that kind of situation that we want to go ahead with steps of this kind where we are dealing with a body such as the Land Bank. Finally, I want to wish the Land Bank everything of the best for the future, particularly because it plays such an important part in the agricultural industry of South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

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

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a generally recognized fact that the strict observance of the speed restrictions on our roads which were introduced as part of the Government’s fuel conservation measures, is of cardinal importance to the success of this conservation effort and our efforts in general. It is a fact that some of our motorists have shown a tendency in recent times to disregard the speed restrictions on our roads and to drive their vehicles at higher speeds than the permissible speed limits. I think that this tendency among the public probably owes its origin to a large extent to the general impression which exists among them that the need for fuel conservation has fallen away and that they may therefore simply ignore the speed restrictions openly and without fear of prosecution.

However, I want to concede at once, and I do so readily, that the mistaken impression among our motorists coincided to a large extent with a general feeling of frustration and irritation—in my opinion— which the observance of the speed restrictions aroused among them. I can understand this feeling. At the same time certain difficulties have also arisen in the effective application of the fuel conservation measures, and especially the speed restrictions, which have contributed much to the public’s tendency to exceed speed limits.

As the hon. the Prime Minister explained in his recent radio broadcast, it is essential for various reasons; and let me emphasize that it is absolutely essential, that the Government’s fuel conservation measures be continued. Therefore, I want to express the hope that the motorists who were under the impression, until recently, that fuel conservation measures were no longer necessary, will accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s explicit statement in this specific regard concerning this matter, and that all motorists will henceforth give their full support once again to the Government’s conservation attempts. I want to emphasize that I do not believe that it is possible for us to achieve the so essential success in the conservation campaign, if we do not obtain the co-operation of the motorist in general. For that reason the approach of the Government is, in the first place, that we do not want to use punitive measures as the only means of ensuring that these measures be observed, but that we should much rather have the emphasis fall on the incentive measures which have been introduced and the positive aspects which have been established to obtain the co-operation of the motorist. I also want to express the hope that the amendment of the speed restrictions, which the Prime Minister announced recently, will contribute to removing the feeling of frustration and irritation to which I have referred and which we have experienced among our motorists. On the other hand, I believe that hon. members will readily concede that it is also essential to the success of our fuel conservation efforts for the difficulties which have been experienced in the effective application of the fuel conservation measures to be eliminated now. It remains equally necessary for effective machinery to exist and for us to have the power to deal with those who do not want to co-operate, but who disregard these measures in a reckless way. Therefore the need exists for the National Supplies Procurement Act of 1970 to be amended so as to give the Government suitable powers in terms of which it may effectively apply in practice steps to be taken to save fuel.

Now I want to proceed to give a brief explanation of the proposed amendments to the said Act which have been embodied for this purpose in the Bill which we are now considering.

†Although the validity of the regulations relating to the use and disposal of fuel have been confirmed by the law courts, it has been suggested in various quarters that the decisions of the various divisions of the Supreme Court in this connection, could be upset if one of these cases were to be taken on appeal to the Appellate Division. I am not prepared to speculate at this stage about the possibility if this particular event occurring.

What quarters are you talking about?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get a chance to discuss this and then I shall reply to his speech. I think hon. members will appreciate that if, as has been suggested, the Appellate Division should find that, while Parliament is not in session, these regulations relating to the use or disposal of fuel are invalid, a considerable period of time will elapse before appropriate legislation to rectify the matter could be introduced. In view of this possibility, it is now proposed that section 2(b) of the Act be amended by clause 1 of the Bill. The proposed amendment comprises the insertion of a new paragraph (iA) in the said section.

*In terms of these proposed new statutory provisions, the Minister of Economic Affairs, or any person authorized thereto by the Minister, will be empowered to regulate in such manner as he may deem fit, or prohibit, by notice in the Gazette or by notice in writing to the person concerned, the use or possession of goods specified in the notice. The exercising of the power concerned is subject, however, to the conditions that the Minister must deem it to be necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic, and also that such measures as may be introduced for this purpose will effect saving or economy in the use of the specified goods.

It is further proposed that four new sections be inserted after section 16 of the Act by clause 2 of the Bill.

Section 16A to be inserted into the Act, provides that an employer or a principal may be held criminally liable for the acts of his employee, manager or agent. The provision will prevent the management of any business, at a prosecution which may be instituted in terms of the Act, shifting its responsibility in terms of the Act on to its employees.

†The proposed section 16B, which is to be inserted into the Act by clause 2 of the Bill, makes provision for certain presumptions which would apply in the case of criminal prosecutions under the Act.

Firstly, it is proposed that a presumption shall be created in connection with any statement or record contained in any book or document kept in respect of any goods or service specified in a notice under section 2(b) of the Act to which I have referred. Under the fuel conservation measures, the management of a filling station is required to keep certain records in respect of certain petrol sales. Existing rules of law pertaining to the admissibility of evidence at a criminal trial, requires the prosecutor to prove the authenticity of such entries. According to the proposed provision, the facts as recorded by the accused, or any employee or agent of the accused, in a book or document shall be admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission of such facts. However, the presumption could be rebutted by proof that the entries in the book or document in question were not made by the accused or his employee or agent.

Furthermore, it has been sumitted that, when a motor-car passes through a speed trap, it does not follow that the driver of the vehicle was, in fact, using fuel to propel the vehicle at that particular point of time. However, if we take into account the fact that any person driving a fuel-propelled vehicle, must necessarily use fuel in the process, it would not be unreasonable to require that the person who claims that he did not use fuel under the circumstances which I have described, should furnish proof furnish proof to substantiate such an allegation.

In view of the foregoing, it is therefore proposed that a new section 16B(2) be inserted in the Act. This section provides that if it should be proven, in a prosecution for a contravention of a notice issued under section 2(b) of the Act, that the accused acted in a manner which involved the use of goods in contravention of the notice, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proven to be the case, that the accused did, in fact, use such goods for the performance of that act. That is to say, if it should be proven in a prosecution for the contravention of the speed restrictions that the accused had driven a petrol-propelled vehicle at the time he was trapped for speeding, it would be presumed, unless the contrary is proven to be the case, that he used petrol to perform the act of driving the vehicle.

*The proposed section 16C, to be inserted into the Act by clause 2 of the Bill, makes provision for an amendment to sections 258, 259, 309vis and 351 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 56 of 1955, in respect of offences which may be committed in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970.

In terms of the Existing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, as amended, an admission of guilt not exceeding R100 may be paid in respect of an offence in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970. The proposed insertion into the latter Act, to which I have just referred, will have the effect of increasing the relevant amount in the case of offences in terms of the Act to R500.

Section 96 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, provides at the moment that all sentences in criminal cases—other than sentences imposed by courts of regional divisions—in which the punishment is, inter alia, a fine exceeding R250, shall be subject in ordinary course to review by the Supreme Court. The proposed amendment to which I have referred, will therefore also have the effect that, in the case of criminal cases for offences in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970, a sentence will go on automatic review only if the fine exceeds R500.

The provisions of the proposed section 16(c) will contribute a great deal to relieving the pressure on the law courts in the case of prosecutions for offences relating to the speed restrictions.

In conclusion, I also want to mention that clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for the insertion of a section 16D into the Act. This section will empower the Minister of Economic Affairs to declare, by notice in the Gazette, a notice under section 2(b), or one or more of the provisions thereof, to be applicable to any person in the employment of the State, who, in the performance of his duties, acts in contravention of such a notice. I shall use this power in respect of the speed restrictions introduced in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970. In suitable cases, where I deem it necessary that Government officials necessarily exceed the speed restrictions in the performance of their duties, I shall, of course, also grant the necessary exemptions. Therefore, provision is also made for this in the section.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, there is no doubt that this Bill is part of the new deal in respect of petrol restrictions which was announced by the hon. the Prime Minister about two weeks ago. I want to say immediately for the record that we approve of the new regulations that have already been gazetted in terms of that statement because, in the first instance, the speed limit has been raised to a reasonable level; secondly, petrol is now available on a Saturday although week-day trading has been reduced by one hour per day; and thirdly, the manner in which this announcement was made had, I think, the approval of everyone in the country. For the first time we were taken into the confidence of the Government as to the necessity for these measures. There is a quid pro quo in this regard which is of course the necessary implication that the implementation of these regulations will of necessity involve a tightening-up of penalties for offences. Having said this, I wish, however, to join issue with the hon. the Minister on a number of the things that he said here.

He said that recently there has been an increasing tendency on the part of motorists to ignore the regulations and to drive at high speeds. He said that this was probably because they were under the impression that it was no longer necessary to drive at the reduced speed. He then went on to say that he readily agreed that this wrong impression did in fact coincide with the general feeling of frustration which compliance with the regulations had in fact induced among the public. The hon. the Minister used somewhat extravagant language in regard to the public’s attitude in that he said that in some respects it was “roekeloos”—reckless. However, he then said that at the same time…

Don’t you understand Afrikaans?

Yes, I understand it. What does “roekeloos” mean if not reckless? What is the translation of “roekeloos”?

I said there were a few people who recklessly ignored it.

That is precisely what I have just said. Don’t you understand English?

That is why the hon. the Prime Minister made the announcement.

The hon. the Minister went on to say that at the same time there were difficulties in the effective implementation of the speed restrictions arising from the tendency on the part of the public to transgress these regulations. If I may suggest it, the reason for the frustration the hon. the Minister admits there was amongst the public, is the inept and ham-handed manner in which the whole situation relating to fuel saving by imposing speed limits has been handled by three different Ministers since the National Supplies Procurement Act came into operation. Hon. members must remember that the Act we are now amending was one which we supported. There was no vote in this House against it. We, however, never believed that it was possible that that Act would be administered in the manner in which it had been up to now. Furthermore, it is not the case, as the hon. the Minister suggests, that there were difficulties in implementing the speed restrictions because of the tendency on the part of the public to transgress the regulations. It was, in fact, quite the opposite. There was indeed a tendency on the part of the public to transgress the regulations because they were unreasonable and because their implementation was inept and unreasonable as well. Every word I have now said, is borne out by what the hon. the Prime Minister announced as the reasons and, indeed, also by the hon. the Minister’s speech itself.

What is the history of this matter? After the National Supplies Procurement Bill was passed, we had from the then Minister of Economic Affairs, now the hon. the Minister of Transport, a Government Gazette on 16 November 1973. In terms of that, the restrictions in relation to fuel saving that were gazetted was that from 6 a.m. on Monday until 6 p.m. on a Saturday— right through, nights and all—people could acquire petrol, only not on a Sunday. People could also carry ten litres additionally There was also a provision that people had to travel at 50 km an hour on any public road within any built-up area and 80 km an hour on any road whatsoever outside built-up areas. That was the situation at first, namely that in a built-up area, the Government decided that people could only do 50 km per hour. It is almost impossible to propel one’s car at 50 km an hour in a built-up area without using a low gear. Nevertheless, that was the provision.

You are speaking nonsense.

I will demonstrate to the hon. gentleman that I am not speaking nonsense. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has already given credence to everything I have said. The hon. the Prime Minister already said in effect that what was done in the past was a lot of nonsense and that this was going to be the new deal. Perhaps anyone on the opposite side can tell me—and this is one of the reasons for the public’s frustration—how it is possible to use excessive petrol at 55 km per hour or 60 km per hour in a built-up area if you are allowed to travel at 80 km an hour on any other given road. After all, 80 km per hour was regarded as the best speed at which one could travel to save petrol.

It is not the best speed. One can improve on petrol consumption by driving slower than 80 km per hour.

Nevertheless, if you did 60 km per hour in a built-up area you committed an offence for which you could be fined in exactly the same way under this Act as if you had been driving 90 km or 100 km per hour, or whatever it may be. That was one of the frustrations. The hon. gentleman now says that I am speaking nonsense. The hon. the Minister of Transport was responsible for that proclamation and he, too, is now saying that I am speaking nonsense.

You are speaking nonsense when you say that 80 km is the best speed.

Let us see whether this 50 km an hour was in fact unreasonable. Sir, what happened after this? On 11 April 1974, the same hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, now the hon. the Minister of Transport, issued another Government Gazette and this provided something quite different again. It provided that you could have petrol from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, but you could not have it at night and you could not have it on Saturdays nor on Sundays. Then, Sir, he provided another formula for built-up areas. He scrapped the provision about 50 km and upped it to 60 km in areas where the general speed limit was 60 km throughout, but you then committed an offence, in terms of the regulations which he published, if you exceeded the maximum speed prescribed by or under any law in respect of the said vehicle along any road in question, and then it remained 80 km. The effect of this was that if there was a provision in a local bye-law that you should travel at 30 km an hour and you exceeded 30 km an hour and drove at 40 km an hour, you then committed an offence in terms of this Act and you were subject to the extremely high penalties for which it provided. Sir, the situation was quite untenable, and it was not as if the hon. the Minister did not get any advice about this; it was not as if we did not raise this matter. The matter went on, Sir, and last year we had a battle in this House about an amendment to the National Supplies Procurement Act, and these things were pointed out once again to the then Minister, who is now the Minister of Finance. These provisions were used by local authorities purely as a means of getting revenue from the public, quite wrongly …

Hear, hear! You are quite right there.

I am glad the hon. member for Parow agrees with me, but what the hon. member for Parow should have regard to is that they did this and that the Government allowed them to do it. When this matter was raised with the then Minister of Economic Affairs, now the Minister of Finance, he became truculent and upset and began to threaten the public. The next thing that happened was that the present Minister again amended these regulations without necessarily making fundamental changes to the speed limit. He dealt with taxis and other things. Sir, this is the way in which this Act has so far been implemented. It has been implemented without having any regard at all to public feeling and without any regard at all to those frustrations which are now admitted. From three successive Ministers we have had no answers so far to the pleas that we made in regard to the administration of this Act. Sir, one can only sum up what has been happening here by referring to a story about evidence which was being led at a commission of inquiry into a collision between trains in Great Britain. The commissioner holding the inquiry was a judge. There was a witness who had seen the collision from a hill. His evidence went something like this; he said: “Well, I saw a train moving in a northerly direction and I said to Di, ‘You know, Di, there is a train moving in a northerly direction on that track.’ He said nothing. I then said to Di, ‘Look, Di, there is a train moving in a southerly direction on the same track’, but Di said nothing.” The commissioner asked him, “What happened then?” He answered: “Well, I said to Di, ‘Look, there is only one track’.” The commissioner then asked him, “What happened then?”, to which he replied: “Well, the one whistled and then the other one whistled.” “What happened then?”, asked the commissioner. The witness answered: “Well, I said to Di, ‘Look at that’.” “What happened then?”, repeated the commissioner. The witness replied: “Well, there was this collision.” “And then?” The witness answered: “Then Di turned to me and said, ‘What a way to run a bloody railway!” Sir, this is perhaps a very pertinent story to illustrate the manner in which this Act has been administered.

I have indicated that we approve of the new deal that has come. The basis upon which the hon. the Prime Minister put this was that foreign exchange was involved. This is understandable and we agree, therefore, that the provision in clause 1 of this Bill is necessary to regulate our affairs in this regard. The attitude, as I have said, so far taken up by the hon. Ministers has no credibility whatsoever, and I can only assume that the reason why the hon. the Prime Minister found himself obliged to announce the new deal, and not the Minister responsible, namely the Minister of Economic Affairs, was because the hon. Ministers who have been handling this matter have no credibility with the public as to the manner and the nature of their administration of the Act. [Interjections.] When one comes to the Bill before us, I have indicated that we agree with clause 1(1), which gives the Minister an additional power to make regulations in relation to the saving of certain goods, in addition to that which is now existing. But in clause 2(2) he attempts to make this power retrospective. As we understand the Bill, as it is now worded in this regard, he does not achieve his object with this, because all the existing regulations, including the latest Gazette which came out on Friday a week ago, were made on the basis of the existing Act, namely that if the Minister deems it necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic, he may make regulations. Now he takes this new additional basis for making regulations and makes that retrospective to the date of the proclamation of the first regulations. I do not see how this is going to resolve whatever difficulty he may have. I must say that as it is now worded you can make the power retrospective; yet I must point out that every single regulation that has been made up to now has been made in terms of the existing power, namely that he exercises his mind as to whether or not the security of the Republic is involved, and not the question, as is now stated in the new powers, of a saving of goods for the economy. So this does not help him, because all the regulations that have been made have been made under the existing section and the Ministers have applied their minds to the existing section. By making a power retrospective, it does not in any way validate what has been done in respect of a different power worded differently in respect of which the Minister’s mind must be applied in a different way. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it seems to me to be possible that the regulations could be challenged if this provision was left as it is, on the basis that the Minister, as I say, did not apply his mind to the question of saving. In any event, in principle we do not agree that legislation should be made retrospective unless there is a compelling reason for it—such as the security of the State being involved, or some other compelling and good reason. Now, what reason is there for this? The hon. the Minister bases his whole case, as he puts it, on the fact that it is suggested in “various quarters” that the decisions existing now of at least two divisions of the Supreme Court may, in fact, be upset by an appeal to the Appellate Division. This is hardly a compelling reason as far as we are concerned. He says it is suggested in “various quarters”. In what quarters is it suggested? There are two divisions which have said that the regulations are in fact valid. Two, or even three, of the divisions of the Supreme Court have said that they are valid, and as far as we are aware and as far as we are concerned, the views of those divisions of the Supreme Court are in fact correct. But will the Minister take us into his confidence and tell us what in fact those quarters are? Is it the law advisers, or what is it? I think we are entitled to know this before taking a step such as this to attempt to make legislation retrospective which in any event we did not approve of at the time. The power conferred in the Bill is additional to the power under which the present regulations are made. Why is it so necessary to make the legislation retrospective? We are now moving into a new era and if the old regulations were, in fact, declared by the Appellate Division to be ultra vires, what would the effect be immediately such a judgment is given? The result would be that pending appeals—there cannot be many of them— would be conceded by the State and furthermore pending trials in the magistrates’ courts, of which there would be very few under the old regulations, would be withdrawn. How many people would be involved? Perhaps a handful, and moreover in respect of offences, as I have indicated, which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister, by introducing the Bill and promulgating the new regulations, admit are unreasonable. Why should one then make the legislation retrospective to validate something which, on the Government’s own admission, is unreasonable? Apart from these considerations there are people who may be affected and have therefore incurred legal expenses in respect of a clause in law about which the hon. the Minister feels that they may be correct. However, it certainly cannot affect the bulk of the persons who have already been convicted or who have pleaded guilty and have paid admissions of guilt, because they have a certain time—14 days—within which to note an appeal. If they do not then that right of appeal is forfeited. One cannot therefore see that there is any reason for this and, unless we have some good reason from the hon. the Minister, which we have not had yet, as to why he wants to do this, we cannot support the second part of clause 1.

Clause 2 inserts four new sections in the Act. The proposed section 16A as it is framed is in our opinion unreasonable. It is quite true—not that the hon. the Minister has said it but it is in fact so—that in so far as the wording of the section is concerned it is almost identical to section 160 of the Liquor Act. In so far as the Liquor Act is concerned, one is dealing with licensed premises in a fixed place in respect of which the proprietor or, if it is not the proprietor himself then the person whom he employs, should know and should, in fact, make it his business to know what is going on. In the case of this Bill, the proposed section will apply to any offence whatsoever in terms of the Act. The proposed section provides for a presumption that the employer is guilty of any offence which his employee may have committed in terms of the Act. The onus is then on him to show not just that he took all reasonable measures to prevent the act or omission in question taking place, but also that he did not permit or connive at such act—that is in order—and that the act or omission whether legal or illegal or of the nature in question did not under any condition or in any circumstances fall within the course or scope of the employment of the employee. It is stated further in subsection (2) that for the purposes of subsection (1) the fact that an employer or principal forbade an act or omission of the nature in question shall not of itself be regarded as sufficient proof that he took all reasonable measures to prevent such act or omission. That may be all very well when one is dealing with licensed premises, premises in a fixed place in respect of which the strictures of the liquor laws and regulations are such that anyone who owns those premises must make it his business to see that, in fact, those laws and regulations are complied with. In fact, it is easy for him to do so. However, what happens in terms of this legislation? Let me take the example of a commercial traveller. The employer of a commercial traveller or the principal of an agent has no control over the movements of such a person. The employer cannot possibly have control over him. That is why he employs a commercial traveller—so that the man can travel around the country. What more can that person do than to forbid the commercial traveller expressly to do it? There is a myriad of circumstances with which I could deal where all that can be done is to forbid the act. In any event, we cannot legislate here for every circumstance which will arise, for every offence that may be committed, for every circumstance where petrol may be used illegally or where the speed limits may be exceeded. How can we legislate for every one? Surely, it is sufficient to say that the person concerned must prove that he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that it does not happen. We do not mind if the onus is placed on him because the facts are peculiarly within his knowledge; but having conceded that let us be reasonable about it. Let us say that in every circumstance he must prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Leave it to the court to decide whether in each case his explanation is acceptable or not. Let us not try to legislate now to cover all the various actions of people because we cannot possibly foresee and anticipate them. While we approve of the principle of putting the onus on the employer, we shall nevertheless seek to have the clause changed at the Committee Stage in the manner I have indicated.

What about clause 3?

Yes, I am coming to that. The hon. member for Parow is very anxious that I deal with clause 3, but just now he asked why I did not deal with all these matters at the Committee Stage. He must make up his mind. The new section 16B(1) as inserted by clause 2 provides that records kept by an employee may be used in evidence against the employer. The hon. the Minister’s case is a good one, namely where the employee keeps the records at a filling station while the employer should in fact be responsible for seeing that those records are kept properly. Other cases may arise which may not be as simple as the one which the hon. the Minister mentioned.

The new section 16B(2) puts the onus on the driver to prove either that he was not using petrol to propel his vehicle or…

Do you accept the new section 16B(1)?

The case which the hon. the Minister put in for the new section 16B(1) was a sound one. There may, however, be circumstances where it will not be sound, especially as far as an agent, for example, is concerned. Say an agent writes down something of which the principal has no knowledge because the agent is not his employee. That may give rise to an entirely impossible situation. Where the onus is now being placed on the driver to prove that he was not using petrol to propel the vehicle or that the vehicle was free-wheeling downhill, for example, we feel that this provision is a reasonable one because almost all the vehicles on the road are petrol-driven or are driven by some petroleum product which is covered by the regulations. There was in fact a decision by the Natal full bench that even if one is going downhill under compression, i.e. when one’s engine is on and in gear but one does not have one’s foot on the accelerator, this cannot be said to be an offence in terms of the Act. However, that is a matter which we believe is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused person. In the same way, it is not unreasonable in a case where a car is propelled by, say, mealie-cobs—I know of such a car in the Free State—that the accused should be able to tell the court that. It is unreasonable to expect traffic constables to smell every petrol tank and to examine the way in which the car is propelled.

That the admission of guilt is now going up to R500 is, I hope, not going to be the forerunner of unreasonable sentences and fines in terms of this Act. This has happened in the past; it is one of the important reasons why the public was thoroughly fed-up with the manner in which the Government administered these regulations. The admissions of guilt were certainly unreasonable.

The object is to save fuel and thus to improve our foreign exchange position. We accept that in terms of the new deal flagrant disregard of these provisions must be dealt with severely. However, one must have regard to the nature of the offence committed at the time. The application of these rules must be reasonable and it should be remembered that R500 is a maximum which should only be applied in exceptional cases. At the moment the fine is unreasonable. It starts off with a basic minimum of R50 and then it goes up by R5 per kilometre. This is unreasonable to the average man. In connection with the application of these fines, I should like to refer to something I pointed out last year when we had a debate on an amendment to this Act. I raised this with the then hon. Minister of Economic Affairs who is now the hon. Minister of Finance. What I had to say fell upon deaf ears. I got short shrift for what I pointed out to him. I hope that the hon. the Minister, being a lawyer, will appreciate what I want to read to him shortly and will see that this principle is applied in future under the more reasonable regulations that have been made. It concerns a judgment of Mr. Justice Eksteen of the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court. The speed limit was then 80 km/h on the open road and he was dealing with the question of sentence. I want to quote from the report which I also quoted from last year (Hansard, 30 October 1974; col. 7089):

The report went on to say:

That is not ray opinion, but the opinion of the full bench of the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court. I think that the opinion expressed there is reasonable and that it is one which should be applied in future if the Government is to get the co-operation of the public. The question of the reasonableness of the manner in which this is to be applied—I want to repeat—is the only way in which one is going to get the co-operation of the public. The situation the hon. the Minister described is one which the Government brought upon itself by the manner in which it conducted its affairs in this regard. I hope that the Government has now learnt its lesson, that the powers granted in terms of this Bill will be implemented in a reasonable way and that the public will be taken into the confidence of the Government, as the hon. the Prime Minister did when he made his statement. That is one of the reasons why that statement was generally acceptable to the public, while threatening statements and unreasonable provisions previously were not.

We therefore offer no objection to the Second Reading but we hope in the Committee Stage to make the more unreasonable conditions of the Bill more acceptable and more worthy of the cause with which the hon. the Minister equates the purpose of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North devoted a very large part of his speech to an allegation that the Government “has no regard for public feelings in the application of these regulations”. I think the hon. member is making a very great mistake. We have been dealing here with an exceptional situation, a crisis situation. It was not something which developed over a long period. Suddenly, the oil crisis emerged from the Israeli-Arab war, the spectre of an oil boycott appeared on the horizon and this matter had to be dealt with by the Government in all urgency. It was a situation which struck not only South Africa, but the whole Western world—in fact, all the industrialized countries of the world which use oil. Various countries reacted to this particular crisis in various ways, but in all cases, measures had to be taken in terms of which this very strategic raw material, viz. fuel, could be conserved to prevent the crisis situation into which we might be plunged. These measures had to be implemented hastily. I can remember very well how it came as a shock to all of us when the fuel and speed restrictions were introduced by the Government. After this shock, we had this situation of growth and adjustment. Initially we realized, as did all countries in the West, that a very serious oil boycott was to be expected and that this could even go so far as to bring about a real shortage of oil in South Africa. There was a threat of an oil boycott, something we must not forget. The threat came from the Arab oil producing countries. In view of the circumstances which prevailed in 1973, the Government had to take certain steps, and it took those steps. The steps were not popular but in no part of the world were any steps which were taken to control the fuel situation popular. In our country they were all the more unpopular, because they affected the transport sector in particular, for it is in fact in the transport sector that we consume the most oil. It is true that South Africa is only dependent upon oil for 20% of its sources of energy, but in respect of its transport, South Africa is virtually 100% dependent on oil. Virtually 80% or 90% of that 20% is used for transport. Therefore if the Government had to save, it had to save on the consumption of oil by motor vehicles, other than in other countries, where oil is used for heating, power generation and other purposes. That is the reason why the regulations became operative then, viz. to save fuel in South Africa. In other countries, where the use of oil was chiefly related to fields other than transport, they could save in other fields. In Germany, for example, they could save chiefly in respect of the generation of power or in respect of the heating of buildings and houses and what goes with that. I think I read somewhere that they used just as much oil in America for their air conditioning equipment as the whole of China used for its power generation. Other countries could, therefore, also save in this field. We in South Africa are limited to a particular field, viz. to the conservation of fuel which is consumed by motor vehicles. As I say, we found ourselves in a particular crisis situation which we had to consider. We did not know whether we would get oil and whether the oil boycott would be effective. We had to overcome that situation. Later we found out that we could get supplies, and as a result of that, the Government made concessions from time to time, and did so again recently. We must also realize that we had a situation here which had to be dealt with quickly. Because that was essential, certain shortcomings necessarily became evident later, but the Government had the courage of its convictions, upon perceiving these shortcomings, to make adjustments, as we have done again during the past month with the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister. We welcome this wholeheartedly. But now the hon. member for Durban North regards the adjustments which have been made as being based on poor administration. That it definitely was not. There was a crisis situation which had to be dealt with, and it was dealt with in the light of the facts at the disposal of the authorities at that stage. They had to face up to the seriousness of the situation. It would probably have given the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban North much joy if we had not introduced measures and subsequently, as a result, found ourselves in a position where we did not have sufficient fuel. However that may be, the position is that we had to take these measures, and we did so in the light of the facts as we saw them.

The fact still remains that a very large part of our foreign exchange is spent on the purchase of fuel. The hon. the Prime Minister said in his talk the other night that we have had to spend an additional amount of about R770 million on fuel since the oil crisis. That is an enormous amount If I am correct, then that means that we spend about a quarter of our foreign revenue from gold on fuel. That is an enormous amount. Unless we can restrict expenditure to some degree, we may perhaps find that we shall have to use the money which we received from the increased price of gold and which we should very much like to use for other development programmes in South Africa, inter alia, for the development of our homelands, the border industries and the expansion of our economy, for the purchase of fuel for transport in South Africa. Therefore, one must proceed with the greatest degree of circumspection in limiting the consumption of fuel as far as possible.

I cannot agree with the hon. member that the Government has acted without sympathy for the public. On the contrary. Steps were taken with great sympathy and with great respect for the public. It was a very unpopular measure. In fact, other countries in Western Europe did not introduce these measures, partly because it was not the front on which they needed to save and partly because they were afraid of public reaction to such a very unpopular measure. However, our Government was not afraid to take the bull by the horns and to finish what they had begun. That is how it did this.

The conservation of fuel means—as I have already said—the saving of foreign exchange and that, in turn, means—as I have already said—the availability of funds which can be used for the expansion of our economy and the economy of the homelands of South Africa. It means a saving in our expenditure overseas. Even if it is a fact that, with the increase of our gold price, we have actually discounted the higher expenses, I think there are so many areas in South Africa into which the higher revenue from our gold could be ploughed, that we cannot afford to increase our expenditure of foreign exchange even further by excessive consumption of fuel. Under the circumstances, I think that the measures which are taken in the Bill which is before us, are effective and aimed at applying the measures more effectively. Therefore I support it.

At the outset the Government appealed to the public to co-operate. I think there was a time when there was an excellent spirit of co-operation between the public and the Government in this connection. I think the overwhelming majority of the public adhered throughout to the limits which were imposed. In that they showed a patriotic spirit. The Government did not issue threats from time to time, as the hon. member for Durban North alleges, but appealed to the public please to co-operate, because it was in the national interest, their own interest and in the interest of all of us that the measures be observed and carried out effectively. Finally, the hon. the Prime Minister also appealed to the public once again to obtain their co-operation. I think that the Government have acted with great patience in this connection. I shall concede that there was friction in aspects of the administrative level, because there was a lack of knowledge of what the real state of affairs of and of how the regulations should be applied. It was a question of adjustment to the new circumstances in which they were thrown. I shall concede that some of these matters were handled callously by some authorities. Seen as a whole, however, I think that the Government acted with great sympathy in this specific connection and made constant appeals to the public to obtain their co-operation, rather than, as the hon. member for Durban North alleges it did, make threats.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Bellville has protested too much in defence of the Government’s attitude to the handling of this particular legislation. If we go back to the principal Act and it will be recalled that we on this side of the House immediately gave our full support to it in the knowledge that both commerce and industry in their discussions with the hon. the Minister of the day regarded it as being an agreed measure. Let there be no doubt that as far as we are concerned we recognized that there was a state of emergency, that regulations were necessary and we gave our full support to the introduction of the original Act which consolidated various other Acts. Today we recognize that we are still in a state of emergency in this country, and the hon. member for Durban North has indicated that we are supporting the major principle of this Bill. The hon. the Minister may feel it was only faint praise but if we are supporting this Bill he must expect much more resistance where his Bills are not as popular. There is, however, no doubt about what the hon. member for Durbanville has said, namely that the public regards this Bill as being implemented in a manner which is more unpopular than most Bills ever introduced by the Government. We have on record comments from industry and from the Automobile Association to the effect that—

The AA goes on to say—

We are concerned with the two major issues, namely speeding and fuel conservation. For the record, we should know that countries throughout the world have different attitudes to speeding. I have taken the trouble to ascertain the various provisions existing in the major countries of the world. They deal with speed limits on single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways. In the United Kingdom, the speed allowed on single carriageways is 80 km/h, on dual carriageways 100 km/h. and on motorways 112 km/h. In the United States they conform to 88 km/h for the three distinctive types of carriageway. For West Germany the figures are respectively 100, 120 and 130 km/h, and for Austria and France the figures are the same. In Denmark the figures are respectively 90, 90 and 110 km/h and in Finland, one of the more cautious countries, the figures are 80 for all three carriageways, whilst the figures in Portugal are 100 km/h throughout. Hon. members will see that even countries with particular problems regarding conservation, have different attitudes to speeding. We believe that the Government quite rightly had some regard for the necessity of saving lives and diminishing the rate of accidents in coming to the figure of 90 km/h. It is common knowledge that the provinces, jointly and collectively, believe that the speed limits should be increased and they believe that the time wasted by the public at large through the lower speed limit is also a significant factor and can be calculated at many millions of rand in terms of wasted effort in this country. That does not involve foreign exchange. We should take into account the attitude of the President of the United States. According to today’s announcement one of the ways he is using in recognizing that there is a problem in most countries of the world in regard to the conservation of energy as well as in reduction of speed, is to increase the tax on imported crude oil from one dollar to two dollars per barrel. This is indicative of the need to save fuel. We on this side of the House want to stress that we go along entirely with the Government in its endeavours to ensure that we will become more and more dependent on our own sources of energy and less and less dependent on crude oils as a source of energy in South Africa.

When, however, we come to the position of the motorist, it is indeed sad. I want to refer to a leading article in the Financial Mail in which the editor says—

I believe it is, in fact, going to scare all motorists to death. When we have regard to the specific provisions that lays responsibility for the acts of an employee on the employer, I can only say that most men in South Africa will indeed be grateful that the hon. the Minister has not gone further and laid the responsibility for the acts of the wife in the case of motoring infringements on the husband. It is impossible to control the acts of the employees, as the hon. member for Durban North has said. When you are dealing with hundreds of travellers and you give instructions that they must adhere to traffic regulations, Government regulations and speed regulations, they can still transgress these and there is no logic or sense in holding the employer responsible.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was saying that despite the protestations of the hon. member for Bellville, the motoring public has felt that no Act has been more reprehensible in its application than this particular Act. The public started off by recognizing that the original measure was designed to help South, Africa in a time of extreme emergency. Sir, just as we on this side gave this measure our support, so the public played the game initially, as the Prime Minister has admitted, until they felt, because of the extremely harsh way in which this measure was applied, that there was no sense in co-operating any longer. Sir, never has there been a greater need for the conservation of fuel, and we want to express the hope on this side of the House, while supporting the Bill in principle, that the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House will recognize the weaknesses that we are pinpointing in this Bill and that they will endeavour to make it possible for the motoring public of South Africa to give of their best in every possible way. If we can achieve this, Sir, we will be serving the interests of South Africa not only in the maintenance of the speed limit, which has been largely disregarded, but also in the saving of life. We on this side of the House attach as much importance to the safety factor in the application of this measure as we do to the saving of fuel, but above all we believe that it is our duty in South Africa to conserve both foreign exchange and energy as such. We feel that our own natural resources of energy in the form of coal and uranium should be used to the maximum extent so that we can become less dependent on oil than we have been in the past. I want to reiterate the words of Pres. Ford, who indicated the other day that even a country as powerful as America, with the fuel supplies that they have in the form of natural oil, cannot ignore the fact that unless greater use is made of energies that come from sources other than oil, America itself faces the gravest possible economic and political insecurity. Sir, since this Bill in essence is designed to provide for the further security of the State, we believe that it deserves our support, but we believe, too, that the Minister should recognize that it is completely unnecessary to make the powers granted to him retrospective to the date on which the first petrol restrictions were introduced. I believe that if he approaches the motoring public of South Africa in a reasonable fashion, as the hon. the Prime Minister did, it should be possible for us not only to bring about a saving in fuel, but to save many hundreds of thousands of lives as well through strict adherence to the speed limits.

Mr. Speaker, we would simply like to reiterate, as I am sure the hon. the Minister will do when he replies, the importance of saving petrol and certain other commodities which are vitally necessary for South Africa. We should obviously make every effort to save fuel, not only from the point of view of saving foreign exchange, which the hon. member for Bellville mentioned. From that point of view we have absolutely no objection to the principle of this Bill. On the other hand, Sir, we do have certain difficulties and certain problems which have been referred to in passing by the hon. member for Durban North. But before we come to the actual wording of the clauses in question and ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be prepared to consider amending them, we would like to say that this Bill does what has become a sort of standard practice, and that is to shift the onus of proof from the State to the defendant. While we can quite understand the importance of saving vital raw materials, and particularly petrol, for South Africa, this practice constitutes neither more nor less than an intrusion into the normal operation of the rule of law. I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will explain to us the reason for the insertion of certain words in certain clauses. Sir, we see certain phrases appearing nowadays in almost every Bill. One sometimes gets the impression that the Government law advisers just pick up certain phrases and put them into each Bill.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I leave the hon. member for Durban Point to converse with the hon. member for Yeoville; I am trying to converse with the hon. the Minister. In the first place, referring to clause 1, the new sub-paragraph (iA), to be inserted after section 2(b)(i) of the Act, refers to “the use of such goods for specified purposes or for the performance of a specified act in a specified manner or for the use of other specified goods”. Will the hon. the Minister, when he comes to reply, tell us about the words at the end of that subparagraph, “or for the use of other specified goods”? I hope the Minister will tell us why those words are there. I can quite see that he wants the power to specify the use of such goods for specified purposes or for the performance of a specified act. That is clearly understandable, but I hope he will tell us why he has tacked on these words “or for the use of other specified goods”.

Now, when we come to clause 2, which inserts a number of sections after section 16 of the Act, I must say that I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Durban North and we will also be introducing amendments. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us why the three conditions which are set out in the proposed section 16A(1)(A), (b) and (c) are cumulative rather than alternatives. In terms of these three paragraphs, an employer is required to prove “that he did not permit or connive at such act or omission; and that he took all reasonable measures to prevent an act or omission of the nature in question; and that an act or omission, whether legal or illegal, of the nature in question did not… fall within… the scope of the authority of the employee, manager or agent concerned.” We would have thought that under all normal circumstances, these should be alternatives in so far as the employer is concerned, in the sense that if he can prove that he took one or other of those three actions, this should be sufficient. Certainly, they should not be cumulative. Secondly, the proposed section 16A(1) starts off in line 19 with the words “An act or omission of an employee, manager or agent which constitutes an offence…” So the offence is already constituted. Then again, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) it refers to “an act or omission, whether legal or illegal”. I do not understand, if line 19 is correct, how in any sense the action can be legal, and I hope that the Minister will explain that to us.

Now, when you come to subsection (2) of the proposed section 16A, you have this extraordinary provision that in no sense, in the case of an employer or a principal, will it be regarded as sufficient proof in itself that he actually forbade an employee to do the act. Sir, this is an argument which comes again and again, and the hon. member for Durban North has pointed it out, but in practice I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, when he looks at this, whether he thinks it is a reasonable obligation to place on an employer when you bear in mind the cumulative effect of the proposed section 16A(1)(a), (b) and (c), and then, in subsection (2), you are told that even if an employer forbids an action, this is not regarded as sufficient proof. The hon. the Minister will be well aware that in most large business organizations in South Africa any person who is taken into employment is given a form which sets out what he may or may not do. He signs that form, so he is fully aware of his obligations, and presumably, where appropriate, such a detail would be incorporated into such a document by the employer simply to bring to the notice of the intending employee that he undertakes, when he enters into employment, that he will not do such and such a thing. In most normal cases that would be considered a reasonable defence, and certainly I would have thought that if in the nature of events a large business asked every person who was working for it, when they joined, to sign such a form, that would be sufficient to reverse the onus of proof which is set out in this Bill.

When we come to the proposed section 16B(1), I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister. The subsection deals with records or statements which “shall be admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission of the facts set out in that statement or record, unless it is proved that the statement or record was not made by such person or his employee or agent.” I can see the point of such a provision in one respect, but we have one point of view in regard to this provision which says that we should add something to the provision. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has a different point of view and I am therefore asking him to make it entirely dear because I am sure that he will agree with the reasoning. We intend moving an amendment to this subsection unless the hon. the Minister will tell us that it is unnecessary in the light of his legal advice. We would like to insert the words “or that the facts as recorded in such statement or record were incorrect”.

The last point which we want to raise in connection with the Bill is simply to ask the hon. the Minister the rationale which lies behind the proposed section 16D(2) which reads—

Clearly the hon. the Minister has some intention in mind and I hope he will inform us as to what it is and what category of person he has in mind.

Order! I appeal to hon. members not to converse so loudly. I, as well as the hon. the Minister, find it very difficult to follow the hon. member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately I have come to the end.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall be able to make myself heard, because I believe that what I have to say is of some significance. We have before us a Bill which is designed to regulate further the powers of the Minister in respect of certain goods. These goods are oil. The question which I want to put is whether the hon. the Minister is competent to handle the powers which he asks the House to entrust to him. I put this question very deliberately because this hon. Minister only about six weeks ago attacked the very principles which underlie this Bill. I propose to motivate this statement in detail. He has approached us today concealed in a heavy sheep skin.

But you are still a wolf! [Interjections.]

If I am allowed to proceed, I want to say that the hon. the Minister approached us today concealed in a heavy sheep skin with an ingratiating smile on his face and he asked us to support this Bill. Only five or six weeks ago that hon. Minister made an unbridled attack on me when I put forward certain policies which happen to be consistent with the Bill. I made a speech in which I foreshadowed the policies now adopted by that hon. Minister… [Interjections] … in fact after the hon. the Prime Minister had been obliged to intervene in his portfolio to put right what had gone desperately wrong. It is essential to look at this matter in order to clear up the hon. the Minister’s confused intentions when he comes to this House today with a measure which only five weeks ago he savagely attacked in this House. I speak with deliberation.

Only a short while ago in the budget debate I made a speech on the oil situation and I said a number of things which I shall briefly recall. I said that the oil problem in South Africa had been clumsily and inefficiently handled. I shall show in a short while that this also, although in other words, is the view of the hon. the Prime Minister. It was originally seen as a crisis of supply and at that time, towards the end of 1973, it was a correct interpretation. The public’s co-operation was sought and it was obtained. It was freely given and for a short while the measures then applied, succeeded. It became apparent fairly quickly to people who took the trouble to study the position closely, that in fact the nature of the problem was rapidly changing. It was no longer a crisis of supply, but a crisis of price. The crisis of price was leading to other crises such as inflation, balance of payments problems and matters of a financial nature which in some countries—to a greater extent than in South Africa—took on the proportions of a kind of crisis which needed stern measures. At no time was this change of emphasis communicated to the public. There was no longer a physical shortage of oil; it was a new kind of crisis altogether. In defence of this statement I quoted certain figures which were published publicly and openly by the hon. the Minister of Finance. During this period of incorrect information, the public was expected to suffer the imposition of a series of fines relating to municipal driving ordinances which had nothing whatsoever to do with the oil crisis. They had to do with the control of traffic, with safe driving and with the management of the flow of traffic through cities. With the encouragement of that hon. Minister the municipalities imposed penal sanctions on motorists as though they were committing offences against national security.

They were swindled.

They were asked to do all these things and to accept all these things in defence of a policy the basic nature, the basic cause and the basic motivation of which had changed. The public knew that the supply crisis had subsided, but they were not told why they were expected to maintain this economy and why they were being subjected to these heavy penalties. The result was that the confidence of the public was lost. A new crisis was building up and they did not know its nature. They were not aware of the fact that it was a matter of a balance of payments crisis, of inflation and of economic disorder. The Government failed in not keeping the public’s confidence. It was at this stage last year and again in the budget debate this year that I attacked the policies of the hon. the Minister. I did use strong language and I said that the policy was wrongly conceived, badly administered and that it was going to fail. What did the hon. the Minister say then? I am speaking now of only five or six weeks ago. He replied to me not by logic, not by reasoning, and not with facts; he made the most truculent and violent attack on me personally and he said that I was undermining…

Read it!

I shall read the words to the hon. the Minister. He made an attack on me for undermining national policy. If the House has forgotten what the hon. the Minister said, I shall read some of the words he used. If hon. members think that I am using strong language this evening, they will be astonished to hear how much stronger the hon. the Minister’s language was in his defence of a failing policy. H said, and I quote from col. 3715:

Note the words “blatant and reckless disregard of the national interest”—

That is quite correct. I agree with it.

He went on to say:

That is correct.

He went on to say, and this is quite interesting:

I am delighted to do it. Apart from a number of statements I made at political meetings around the country of which I have no published record, I also…

[Inaudible.]

Before the hon. the Minister opens his mouth too wide, I want to tell him that there is more coming and he had better be careful. Apart from those speeches of which I have no record, I do also happen to have a Hansard record and I shall quote only two extracts from that. Shortly after the oil crisis, when it was a real crisis of supply, I said on Thursday, 7 February 1974 (Hansard, col. 349)—

On the same day I went on to say (Hansard, col. 356-7)—

If this constitutes an attack or failure to support the efforts of the Government to deal with this problem, I am very surprised at the interpretation given to it by the hon. the Minister.

Now we come to an interesting stage. Only about five weeks after this pompous and savage attack, after this extraordinary and unbridled use of language, we had the hon. the Prime Minister speaking to the South African nation on the radio. I shall not read his speech, but only certain extracts from it. I should then like the House to judge whether in fact the hon. the Prime Minister was not making exactly the same points as I made in my speech only five weeks earlier, the very speech which that hon. Minister attacked. The Prime Minister said—

That is precisely what I said. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say, and I am quoting his words directly—

[Interjections.] If I was not saying that in my speech, I ask the hon. the Minister to tell me exactly what I was saying. I was saying just that, and for that I was accused by that hon. Minister in his typically fatuous and pompous manner of being disloyal and unpatriotic and of acting contrary to the national interest. That is what he said, not five years ago, but five weeks ago. And now the hon. the Prime Minister is saying precisely what I then said. The Prime Minister then went on to say—

Then he went on to deal with the very economic matters I mentioned, such as the balance of payments, and said in effect: “This is the justification; we should have told you that the real reason is recognition of the balance of payments problem. Please now begin to co-operate with us again in our efforts to conserve fuel.” He went on to explain how the high prices, which we have to pay for crude oil, represent enormous foreign exchange expenditure. That is what I said in my speech. I had accused the Government of not explaining this to people and of not obtaining their co-operation. I said that if this were to be done, one would obtain their co-operation and if it were not done, the Government’s policy would fail. Well, as I have already repeated to this House, the hon. the Minister accused me of all manner of unpatriotic and disloyal activities. What happened, however, when the hon. the Prime Minister had made his speech? That hon. Minister, “His Master’s Voice,” like the little dog that listens to the gramophone horn, immediately took up another tune. He began to preach the doctrine of the Prime Minister. He has, in point of fact, come to this House tonight and made a speech which, in many ways is a repetition firstly of the appeal made by the hon. the Prime Minister and in many ways a repetition of the speech which I made in this House five weeks ago, and which was then singled out as proof and cause of gross disloyalty. This is the hon. the Minister who comes to us now with ineffable effrontery and ask this House to support a policy which he condemned five weeks ago. What kind of Minister is this? What kind of Minister is this who now comes to this House, with a broad smile on his face, to tell us that he seeks our confidence to support him in these new powers? We are a patient House. [Interjections.]

He is now carrying out what we suggested. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs should confine himself to Indian affairs. We are dealing here with a matter that does not really concern him at the moment. We have advocated a policy in this House in the last two years and we have been consistently attacked by none other than the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his predecessor. Tonight the hon. the Minister comes to this House and asks us to accept this policy as though it was the Government’s own invention. I think that after the kind of blow-hard language used and the arguments employed in this House we are entitled to expect from that Minister at least a withdrawal and an apology. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, who likes to intervene in matters that do not concern him, has asked me whether we propose to vote against the Bill. We have already made our position clear. Apart from what the hon. member for Durban North has said in defining our position, we already defined our position two years ago; we again defined our position one year ago and we also defined our position clearly five weeks ago. We have stated our position and we are undeterred by the rudeness and the attacks from that side of the House. We stand by the same principles. We do, however, feel it right to bring to the notice of this House the vacillations, uncertainty and the changes of attitude of that hon. Minister who comes to this House as I have said, clad in a heavy sheep skin, with a fawning smile on his face, asking us to vote for this policy as though it were his own.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the remark being made that it is the sheep and not the wolf who has just spoken. I want to begin with the hon. member for Von Brandis. I intend to repeat every statement I made in the budget debate. I am going to do so now. However, I want to go further. The hon. member for Von Brandis finds it extremely difficult to consort with the truth. I want to tell him that when we talk about credibility, he ought to hang his head. I have his Hansard before me. The hon. member spoke in that particular debate in general terms. He criticized the Government in the Budget debate in connection with its objectives. I do not intend to deal with that. However, the hon. member then gave specific examples of the Government’s inability to combat inflation. Let us now take a look at what he said about the fuel question. I think that this is necessary in the interests of truth and for the record, because he is posing this evening, as he did then, under the cloak of pious superiority. [Interjections.] Let us let the facts speak for themselves. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. member will listen to me, just as I listened to him. Referring to the fuel crisis of 1973, the hon. member said—

In other words, in November 1973 he said that it appeared to be true that there was perhaps an element of truth in it.

Read the whole paragraph.

I intend to read all of it so that the hon. member can hear it [Interjections.] The hon. member went on to say—

That is precisely what I meant.

The hon. member must please give me a chance just as I gave him a chance.

You are taking a long time, are you not? Why do you not get to the point?

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and consider his list of failures, then I must encourage him to be quiet. [Interjections.] I ask hon. members please to give me a chance just as I gave the hon. member for Von Brandis a chance. The hon. member went on to say—hon. members must listen to this carefully—

[Interjections.]

Order!

Do words, then, have no meaning? The hon. member states that it seems that there was a crisis of availability. I say this evening that there was such a crisis.

So did he.

He did not say that.

He did say that.

Your whole little house of cards has collapsed.

Mr. Speaker, if words have any meaning, the hon. member said that it appeared …

That is how it appeared to the world.

Order, order! Hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister a chance to go on with his speech.

The hon. member said that it appeared to be true because there was some truth in it. Does that not mean that there was only an element of truth in it? His next statement was—

He also said—

Surely that is not true. The hon. member for Von Brandis comes here and poses in the guise he adopted this evening. The hon. member went further. He said—

It was months later that the crisis of availability became a crisis or a problem of balance of payments. [Interjections.] The hon. member must please give me a chance now. Consider how the hon. member, who is so concerned to vindicate his person—after all, that is what is involved— handles the financial crisis. I accused the hon. member of that at the time, and I repeat that accusation this evening. Consider the terms in which he refers to the financial crisis, as they appear in Hansard: “(Now the cost of the imports of oil) have increased by about R100 million.” That is untrue. The facts are that the additional costs in this particular regard were R700 million in one year.

Why did you not say so in the first place?

I shall say what I said the first time. I am coming to that. For the sake of the truth, the hon. member must at least give me the same chance as I gave him.

He has not said a word yet.

Then the hon. member must please get his group of vociferous supporters to be quiet. [Interjections.]

Order! The vociferous supporters on both sides of the House must be quiet.

The hon. member made a categorical statement of what the financial implications were. He quantified it; he stated how much was involved. However, it was not true, nor did the hon. member try to find out the truth. In other words, the second accusation I made against the hon. member still stands.

I now come to the third accusation, because I believe that we should deal with everything. The hon. member will remember that I had a conversation with him before he issued his statement after the announcement by the Prime Minister, in reaction to that announcement. I leave it to the hon. member’s conscience.

Which conversation?

The conversation we had in your bank. I am not going to quote it, but I am going to take it further.

Order! It would not be proper to quote the conversation.

I do not intend to quote the conversation. We find a third untruth in the statement made to the newspaper by the hon. member. The hon. member said that there was no crisis of availability. That was untrue. The first untruth, therefore, is that the hon. member said that there was no crisis of availability. The second untruth is that he said that the financial implications meant an extra R100 million. That, too, was an untruth. The third untruth is the statement the hon. member made to a newspaper. I take it that the hon. member regards it as true, since the hon. member did not repudiate it. Furthermore, this is the only statement on petrol crises issued by the hon. member that has ever appeared in public, with the exception of his Hansard, which I am still coming to. In that statement the hon. member said that the Prime Minister had to intervene with regard to the conservation measures. Surely the hon. member did not check that fact. Surely it is a fact that the crisis developed in 1973, when the hon. the Minister of Transport was in command. At that time, because it was an important situation of national importance, he requested the hon. the Prime Minister to make the announcement concerning the measures.

I confirm that.

Surely that is true. [Interjection.] The hon. member says he knows, and that makes the transgression by the hon. member for Von Brandis doubly reprehensible. The fact is that the only reason why the hon. the Prime Minister made the announcement was that the magnitude of the matter was such, in terms of the national interest—and I do not expect the hon. member for Von Brandis to understand that—that we decided it was a matter to be dealt with by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I said that myself; here is my Hansard.

Wait a little. That is what the Cabinet decided, and I want to take it further. I have been appointed and I must defend myself against blatantly untrue accusations levelled by an hon. member. I now intend to do so.

Order! I cannot allow “blatantly untrue”.

I withdraw it, but nevertheless it remains untrue [Interjections.] I am proving it. The hon. member spoke in the language of wolves and he must not howl like a wolf now.

Order! The hon. the Minister should rather withdraw the word “wolf”.

The hon. member must not howl, then. I withdraw the word “wolf”, Sir. I took over the portfolio of my predecessor on 5 February. My first public act was in respect of… [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban North belongs to the past. “It is what it is”, and as long as he remembers that, I shall continue with him. [Interjections.] My first act, when I discussed this particular subject, was on 27 February—three weeks after I was appointed. On that occasion I went into detail as regards the new reasons for conservation. I put it very clearly that in the short term it was no longer a question of availability, but that other considerations applied.

This is just another egg dance.

No, it is not an egg dance; the speech is available for the hon. member to read. [Interjections.] Fourthly, my complaint against the hon. member for Von Brandis and his party is that at the time the Act was passed, they did exactly what they have done in the debate this evening. They only agreed to clause 1(1) of the Amendment Bill and criticized the rest. Wait now! It is no use the hon. member laughing about this. I shall come back to the hon. member for Durban North.

We are waiting, we are waiting.

Surely the facts are that I challenged the hon. member for Von Brandis to tell me where he had defended, not the principle of the measure, but the measure itself, in public. I now challenge the hon. member again to show me where he advocated the implementation of the principle which he recognized—and recognized again this evening. All the hon. member was able to give me was what he said at the time, viz. that they supported the principle of the conservation measures.

What more do you want?

Surely it is meaningless to support the principles and then condemn their implementation. All the hon. member asked about was what happened in regard to the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister. I ask him whether he had requested at any stage that filling stations be open on Saturdays. The answer is apparent from his silence; the answer is “No”. I ask him whether he ever asked that the speed restriction be increased from 80 to 90 km.

Yes, to 100.

I am talking about the hon. member for Von Brandis. Did the hon. member ever ask that the hours during which petrol could be sold, be changed? Sir, again the answer is “No”. Sir, it is this duality of standpoint on the part of the official Opposition which causes members of that party to split off and their credibility…

We are talking about petrol now.

That is what I am talking about. Hon. members opposite have never been able, nor are they able this evening, to avail themselves of an opportunity such as this to prove that they do not only agree with the measure in principle, but are prepared, too, to accept the practical steps that have to be taken to implement the principle. But we shall discuss this again in the Third Reading debate and in the Committee Stage. Sir, I challenge any member of the official Opposition to prove that he is prepared now or was prepared then to quantify the steps that had to be taken and say, “Listen, the steps you must take in order to deal with this problem are the following.” I challenge the hon. member for Von Brandis, in all his superiority, to do this for me. Sir, the only reply we received was the one furnished by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He gazed into a crystal ball and found out that one could determine from the satellites the source of our supply of fuel.

†Sir, I want to reply very briefly now to the hon. member for Durban North. All the hon. member did when he discussed the Bill before us was to echo the statements of the hon. member for Von Brandis six weeks ago. He did not give indication as to how he though this measure should be implemented, except to say that he though that 90 km was a reasonable speed.

I thought you were a lawyer.

I am.

You will know tomorrow exactly how we propose to improve the Bill.

Order!

Do you want to make a speech?

Sir, in my Second Reading speech I said that in the first place, we wanted to rely on the co-operation of the public. In the second place I want to say that we were given that co-operation by the majority of motorists. But I go further and say that we need penal measures in order to deal with the reckless individuals. The hon. member accuses me of generalizing when I say that motorists are reckless, and then he claims to be a lawyer.

But I never said what he is imputing to me, and he knows that I did not say it, too. But he also makes a further statement. He states that the speed restriction was fixed at 80 because that was the best speed. Sir, he did not even check this fact, because this is not true, he knows nothing about this. [Interjections.] What has happened now? Clause 1 of the Bill is an empowering provision, and if the hon. member has perused the judgments of the courts—and I shall reply to him in detail on that score at the Committee Stage if he so wishes—then he will know that when an empowering provision is amended and made of retrospective effect, then notices or regulations promulgated in terms of the amended provision are valid, just as if they had been promulgated under the new provision. But then, when the hon. member analyses legislation as a lawyer, he really should not do so in the terms he employed this evening. He opposes certain presumptions. I want to mention just one to him now; I shall reply to the other at the Committee Stage. At the same time I am replying to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Let us consider for a moment section 16A(1) which, in a nutshell, creates a presumption with regard to the responsibility of the employer for the actions of his employees. It provides that the employer, the principal, is responsible for the contraventions of his employees, manager or agent, unless he proves… Everyone knows that a presumption is essential. We all concede that. But consider, now, what he has to prove to rebut the presumption against him. He states (a) that he did not connive at the offence. He only has to prove that it was not committed in front of him; that he did not allow it; (b) that he had adopted all reasonable measures to prevent the offence; and (c) that the employee, manager or agent was not authorized by him to carry out the act or omission in question which constituted the offence. Now the hon. member—and he is a lawyer— comes along and compares this presumption, which I maintain is not difficult to rebut, with the Liquor Act and states that it is just as onerous. [Interjections.] The comparable section is the section in the Criminal Procedure Act, section 381(5). There, too, there is a presumption. But what is the onus here? It is that he did not take part in the committing of the crime or contravention—and not the alternative, as the hon. member for Johannesburg pleads—and that he was unable to prevent such crime from being committed. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bellville has already replied to one specific statement which I want to re-emphasize, viz. that the initial measures were measures promulgated in an emergency situation, and after all, in the nature of the matter there was not as much time at the disposal of the people who had to do the preparation work and the submissions at that stage as there is now, post facto, when we look at it now. That is why measures were initially adopted in regard to the speed restrictions in the cities, which fixed the speed restriction at 50 km/h in terms of these measures. It was not at the request of hon. members opposite that that speed restriction was increased to 60 km/h. We must bear in mind, too, that at that stage, as is, in fact, still the case today, the department to which the implementation of the conservation measures is entrusted did not have at its disposal officers such as traffic constables and police officers, and consequently other bodies, those to whom traffic arrangements were entrusted in the normal course, had to be used in order that the measures could be implemented. The measures announced by the hon. the Prime Minister were in the first instance, as he himself said, calculated to try and eliminate the irritating factors and to be accommodating towards the motorist. This is now being made possible through this Bill.

The hon. member for Durban North asked certain questions relating to the increased admission of guilt. I want to inform him at once that the whole set-up, in the first place, is that as far as speed restrictions up to 80 km/h are concerned, the provincial administrations are responsible for the regulation of traffic in terms of their own ordinances or regulations. The penal provisions will therefore be in according with that. In the second instance, in increasing the maximum amount payable in admission of guilt, our intention is to provide that people need not appear before the courts unnecessarily. In the final instance—I want to emphasize this—we shall apply the penal provisions drastically to those who follow the example of irresponsibility set by the hon. members of the Opposition.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned a few days ago, I was reacting to the speech made by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. Unfortunately I do not see him in the House at the moment, but I believe that there are certain points in his speech which should be dealt with by me before I come to the Bill itself. The first point is that he maintained that Fedhasa, which is the Federal Hotel Association of South Africa and a very important body in the concept of this Bill, knew what their rights were and that they were fully aware of the fact that they had these rights in order to allow Black people, Brown people, Indians and Asiatics to come into their hotels to enjoy the amenities of food and lodging. However, this is not so. In point of fact, what did Fedhasa say in their evidence? I am surprised that the hon. member for Potgietersrus who was the chairman of the Select Committee did not recollect the evidence. They actually said in their evidence—I quote from page 26 of the original evidence—

Therefore they did not know where they stood in this matter at all. Furthermore, I want to emphasize the fact that Fedhasa actually said in their evidence before the Select Committee that they approved of open hotels. This is what they said. I do not think that anybody here can gainsay this. In fact it is supported by the fact that the hon. member for Waterkloof—who unfortunately is not here at the moment— actually referred to the fact that they supported the concept of open hotels where a hotelier is given the right to decide what people may come into that hotel. The hon. member for Waterkloof asked a representative of Fedhasa the following question, and I quote from page 30 of the report—

In other words…

To which question are you referring?

I am referring to question 140. I do not have very much time at my disposal and I really think that the hon. the Minister must look these things up more quickly when we refer to them. This is the background. The Federated Hotel Association of South Africa was prepared to accept this concept which was contained in the alternative Bill which was submitted to the Select Committee by this side of the House.

I want to come back to the Bill itself. I believe that this Bill has failed and will fail in the context of our times. I believe that the times in which we are living today— this was in fact emphasised in the evidence given before the Select Committee—are changing at a remarkable speed. The situation is changing all the time and I believe that this country has adapted itself to that change. I believe that the Government itself has in its broad thinking adapted itself to change and has realized that it is important that there must be change to move with the times. I am thinking of the detente moves in particular that have been taking place in relation to the situations in our neighbouring states and that have also been taking place inside our country itself. I should like to remind hon. members here of the fact that we have had the Nice Malan Theatre thrown open and I believe that others will be thrown open as well. I so want to remind them of the fact that the Government’s sports policy has been adapted and readapted. It has to move with the times.

Where do you want to stop?

We have had recognition by the Government of the fact that the Brown people have residential rights near the centre of the Mother City of Cape Town. Black people have also been given real rights in regard to residences and land in townships in the urban Black areas in the White parts of South Africa. We have also had the declaration by our representative to the United Nations to which I want to refer because I believe that it is in context with this particular Bill. I refer to page 18 of the United Nations Review which was furnished to all hon. members in this House. This is what our representative said in the United Nations—

It has never been our policy!

He went on to say—

It has never been our policy! [Interjections.]

I continue—

It has never been our policy!

Order!

If hon. members will give me an opportunity, I wish to quote further:

With this background we find this Bill presented to this House, a Bill which the hon. the Minister expects to be made law. However, this Bill fails to align itself with these moves because it puts the country back ten to twenty years. Suddenly the Government comes forward and slams the door of public amenities in the faces of millions of people in this country. Then it opens the door a chink and says it is now adopting an enlightened policy in line with the statement made by its representative in the United Nations. This chink is being opened only to a few selected people. One of the results of this law that this Minister wants us to pass here is that it is going to inhibit the vitally necessary free flow of ideas between people of different races. It is also going to close down the opportunities for communication between races as well as the opportunities to build up a mutual respect and regard between races.

The Government admits publicly that it is closing the door and then just opening it a chink. In 1968 the then Minister of Justice said he was not prepared to condone the trend that was taking place in regard to the sale of liquor. On 7 June 1968 he stated (Hansard, Col. 6769):

He went on to say (cols. 6769-70):

That was the intention in 1968. As a result of that it followed that hotel licences which were granted after that time were all granted subject to the condition that only White people would be allowed to be accommodated, served meals and served liquor. That was the result of that move. Furthermore, no further so-called canteen facilities were granted, i.e. that no further separate facilities were granted to people of different race groups. Then in 1970 it appeared that these moves were not adequate. I quote what the chairman of the Liquor Board said on page 20 of the report where he was talking of these trends and had just referred the Select Committee to the statements made by the Minister in 1968:

In other words, it was found then by the Government to be necessary to stop not only on-consumption but also the serving of refreshments and the providing of accommodation. This was the background to the whole of this Bill itself. The Government have now come forward with this Bill because they found the law was open. They did not find, significantly enough, any evidence of disruption between the race groups as a result of there being an opportunity to serve liquor or meals to different races in White hotels or to provide accommodation for them. There was not one jot or tittle of evidence to this effect whatsoever. This move has been made solely on the basis of ideology.

I maintain that the advent of this Bill today heralds a tragic day for South Africa. Look at the size of our country. Consider the natural desire of the Indians, for instance, for hotel accommodation and meals. Consider the Indians who love travelling, a fact stated in the representations made to the Select Committee by the Indian Council itself. One in five of the Brown families in this country own motor cars. There are also the Black people who travel from the homelands to their working areas, in conformity with Government policy. I think that the hon. the Minister should take a hard look at his predecessor’s decisions and that he should make up his mind as to whether he will go on with this Bill or withdraw it. The Bill fails specifically in seven dear respects relating to sociological points of view in this country. I believe that the Government’s background, as evidenced by statements made by the hon. the Minister, points to the fact that it is going to be highly selective in the manner in which it is going to grant licences for open hotels. The Bill fails firstly to provide for the needs of all the people of this country, for example the businessman on business. I am, of course, talking about non-Whites. It fails to provide for the businessman who moves throughout the country. There are going to be only a few open hotels. It fails to provide for the officials of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, of the Black people, and of the Indian people. It fails to provide for the academics who travel to symposiums. A broad spectrum of people are going to be prevented from obtaining the normal facilities that are offered to the general public of any country of worth today.

The whole object is to provide facilities.

Secondly, the Government fails to provide the non-White traveller—not the businessman—with any reasonable amenities. In the smaller cities and towns, and perhaps even in the very small towns, motor cars occasionally break down. The weather is occasionally inclement and there is often the need for a casual meal or accommodation, but there will be no facilities provided at all for these people. Thirdly, the Government fails to provide for the foreign Black person who visits this country from Swaziland, Lesotho or Botswana. The residents of those three countries can move freely on passports between their countries and ours, but their passports are not stamped in terms of section 7 of the Aliens Act and those people are considered to be on an equal footing with the Black, the Brown and the Indian people of our own country. They will not be entitled to the facilities granted a foreign traveller who has an endorsement on his passport.

You know you are not being practical now.

The Government discriminates against those people with whom we have an agreement for tourist purposes. We have an agreement with Swaziland, which is one of the five members of SARTOC. How can we possibly ask those people to send members of their community to our country for tourist purposes when we have nothing to offer them? The Government also fails to provide for the important persons who come from the Black embryo homelands. There is no provision whatsoever in this Bill, or in the Act itself—and the hon. the Minister knows this —for the Ministers from the Black homelands, their secretaries or their families. It fails to provide for the guests of a foreign traveller or diplomat who has come into this country and wishes to entertain a White person or a Black person. It makes no provision for that person to entertain at any hotel other than a restricted number of open hotels and it fails to provide for casual meeting between races in hundreds of small towns in any hotels other than those that are declared open. It also fails to provide for visiting sailors who are not White. There is no provision in this Bill either for ships’ captains and ships’ officers who are not White. They are to be dealt with administratively.

But there will be international hotels in the harbour cities.

Big deal!

Tell us how many.

It is quite clear that this is once again a contravention of the law which has been circumvented by the hon. the Minister’s giving certain people instructions not to prosecute. That is what is happening with visiting sailors who are not White. There are two further grave disabilities. The one is that there will be economic discrimination between hotel and hotel. The Chairman of the National Liquor Licensing Board indicated that in his opinion there would probably be one hotel, an open hotel, in Pretoria, one in Port Elizabeth and one in East London. He also mentioned a few in Cape Town and some in Johannesburg. What is going to happen in Pretoria? Is there going to be one open hotel out of 44? Who is going to get that plum? Will there be one hotel out of 26 in Port Elizabeth? These are licensed, White hotels. Who is going to get that plum? Is there going to be one hotel out of 20 in East London? There is going to be discrimination between hotel and hotel on an economic basis as far as this provision is concerned. Above all, it has the major disability of having this hon. Minister in the driving seat. I want to explain why I believe that this is a major disability. In a statement to the Press the hon. the Minister stated that—

He went on to say—

He stated further—

Mr. Speaker, if they are going to be affected in the bar will they not be affected in the bar lounge? Will they not be affected in the dining-room? What is all this business about being affected? We demand to know from the hon. the Minister what he means by that insulting statement. The hon. the Minister then went on to say something worse. This is what he is reported as having said—

What trust in human nature!

Mr. Speaker, if that is the approach of the hon. the Minister then I must ask him these questions. If he sees a gentleman dancing with a lady who is not his wife, what does he think that might lead to?

Has he been to Swaziland?

I want to ask him another question. What does he think…

Just leave my wife out of this, if you don’t mind. [Interjections.]

He did not mention your wife at all.

If the hon. the Minister sees a person dancing with a girl under the age of 16, what does he think that that may lead to?

I think he has a dirty mind!

This is peculiar thinking: this is weird thinking; this is thinking that this country cannot put up with. We cannot have this hon. Minister deciding which hotels are going to be thrown open and which are not.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am afraid I do not have the time.

I listened attentively to what you had to say; you do not know what you are talking about.

What does the hon. the Minister think when he considers that people who are not White may enter the country as diplomats? In terms of the first clause of this Bill they may enter any hotel. Travellers or tourists who are not White may also enter any hotel throughout this country. There is no law to prevent their dancing with White people. What are the other Black people at the open hotels going to say if the foreign diplomat can dance with a White person but they may not? Is this not going to create situations? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that that is going to create situations?

The hon. the Minister invited a member to explain the reasoning behind the amending Bill which was put forward by this side of the House in the Select Committee.

The reason why we moved our draft Bill is that, firstly, it is in fact a tested and a tried principle that the hotelier himself has the right to control the admission of people to his hotel. He can decide who may come into his hotel. It has been tested in Rhodesia and since 1963 there have been no changes whatsoever in the relevant Act in Rhodesia. There is no provision in the Rhodesian Liquor Act at all for differentiation between races. What has in fact happened in Rhodesia is that there was a natural sorting out between people of all races based on their social and economic backgrounds, and there has been no friction in Rhodesia since 1963. Secondly, we maintain that the amending Bill we proposed would solve all the problems that I have just mentioned, which arise out of the Bill which is before the House. Thirdly, it was supported by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The hon. member for Brakpan can write down as much as he likes; it is all in the evidence I have here.

It was not.

It was also supported by the Institute of Race Relations, the rector of the University of the North and the S.A. Indian Council. I want to repeat that it was also supported by Fedhasa.

We have confidence in our hoteliers and we believe that it is not necessary to legislate in this sphere at all. One cannot legislate for every contingency and the hon. the Minister will know this. Our suggestion provides a flexibility, while there is always the protection in the background of the liquor licensing laws. This will act as a deterrent to any licence-holder who may allow an unhealthy situation to develop. We believe that hoteliers will exercise their discretion reasonably as has been done for a long time in this country. We have faith in the White people who, we believe, will be able to create a situation of peaceful and harmonious coexistence with other race groups. Without faith we have no future in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London City made a number of statements which I shall refer to in the course of my speech. These statements concerned, inter alia, the evidence which was given. The hon. member advanced certain arguments which convince one he does not understand the Act, even at this stage. The important motive of this legislation is to meet the need which has been identified. This is the important principle which forms an integral part of this legislation.

However, when we consider the draft Bill of the United Party, the first point that strikes one is that this is once again a manifestation of the policy of laissez-faire which is so characteristic of them. This was originally the case with their Bantu policy, i.e. “let things develop”. We found the same thing in their labour policy. They want to allow the trade unions to decide for themselves whether they want mixed trade unions. We found the same thing in their sport policy: They want the clubs to decide for themselves whether they want to be mixed. As soon as chaos develops, they throw their hands in the air and say: “What do we do now?” This is not the way a strong Government acts. We believe in orderly development, in the elimination of friction and in separate development. This Bill is a fine, imaginative example of the unfolding of separate development where we are now, according to the needs, providing people of different colour with their own hotels. The second point I want to make, is that the draft Bill of the United Party is in conflict with the evidence which was submitted to the Select Committee. It is in conflict with the memorandum which served before the Select Committee, and it is in conflict with the weight of the evidence. Surely, the important task of a Select Committee is to determine what the evidence is and then to draw up a draft Bill on the strength of such evidence. But the United Party, with their eves turned to the left, drew up their own Bill, a Bill which is altogether in conflict with the evidence and the memorandum which served before the Select Committee.

What did the department say?

I shall deal with that if the hon. member for Durban North would give me a chance. There were 10 witnesses. Not one of those witnesses asked for what the Opposition is proposing now.

That is untrue.

Thirty-eight memorandums were submitted to the Select Committee. Four of those 38 memorandums asked for what the United Party is asking for now.

That is also untrue.

Sir, who were those four? The first one was Prof. Boshoff, rector of the University of the North—a private person—and I venture to say that he will accept this Bill. The second person was a certain Mrs. Herr, a private person. The third person was a certain Mr. W. L. Baqwa, a social and industrial public relations officer at Roberts Construction Company Limited, a private company. The fourth was the Institute of Race Relations. There is no need for me to say anything further about them.

Why not? It is a lawful organization.

As against those, Sir, who were the organizations who were supporting this legislation? There are 34 of them, inter alia a Coloured body, the “Vakansieen Toerklub S.A.-Suid”, the Indian Council, the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Natal Chamber of Industries, various Government departments and many others, and, the most important of them all, Fedhasa. Sir, the hon. member for East London City should not leave the Chamber now: he should listen, please. As he knows, Fedhasa represents all the hotels in South Africa, including the non-White hotels. In this regard the hon. member for East London City heard a rumour but he does not know the source. He said—

He went on to say—

Sir, what are the facts? In order to determine the true facts, we first have to consider the recommendations of the Hotel Board. The hon. member for East London City should listen now and not occupy himself with other matters. In his memorandum, in paragraph 6.6 on page 5, the Hotel Board had the following to say (translation)—

This is what the Hotel Board had to say.

I did not say a word about it.

But the hon. member said that Fedhasa asks for open hotels because the Select Committee gave them to understand that they did not consider this matter.

Yes.

This is what the Hotel Board has to say, and I now quote what Fedhasa has to say about it—

I am referring to Memorandum I—

which asks that there should be no open hotels.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he agree that the Fedhasa and the Hotel Board memorandum referred to clause 1 of the Bill only?

No, they referred to fully open hotels for all people. That was what the entire memorandum of Fedhasa and of the Hotel Board was concerned with.

It was only dealing with clause 1.

No, it was not only concerned with clause 1. I take issue with the hon. member on that point.

He did not want to reply to a question of mine, and now he wants to put questions to other speakers.

Sir, I can also refer the hon. member to page 47. The hon. member says that Fedhasa did not consider this matter, but on page 47 Mr. Freedberg had the following to say—

They considered all aspects.

Go on.

I quote further—

I shall go further. On page 42 (translation): “We did not expect the matter to go that far.” On page 43 (translation): “Therefore, you would have contented yourself with what was recommended by the Hotel Board?—Yes, we would have been satisfied.” I am also referring to page 26. This is the evidence that was submitted by Fedhasa throughout. On page 26 Mr. Freedberg had the following to say—

There are many quotations I could have furnished if time allowed me to do so, instances which clearly prove that. Fedhasa was not prepared, at this stage, to go as far as the United Party wants to suggest, and this applies to all non-Whites in South Africa. But the arguments of the hon. member were typical of those of an advocate who tries subjectively to make the witness say things what he wants him to say. For example, take the question of friction. He said that nowhere in the evidence he found anything to the effect that there was any friction in the past. I want to refer him to the memorandum of the “Kleurlingvereniging Afrika-Suid”, in which it was said that if the present state of affairs were to continue, problems would arise.

If the present state of affairs were to continue, yes.

Yes, then there would be friction and problems. Furthermore, I want to refer to the evidence submitted by Mr. Scholtz on pages 49 and 50, to the effect that if the doors should be thrown open completely there, chaos could possibly arise. Did the hon. member not read this? [Interjections.]

†Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban North is not present at the moment. I want to quote what he said—

Obviously this is not correct, Sir. The hon. member for East London City also said this. This was not the evidence of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Quite obviously Mr. Fourie, the Secretary, concentrated on the point of view of the foreign visitor. If the hon. member will turn to page 58 he will find that this question was put to the Secretary—and it is on the reply to this question that he relies as far as this evidence is concerned—

Would it not be an improvement if all hoteliers were to have the right to determine for themselves whether or not to admit Blacks?

To this the Secretary replied—

Sir, that referred to non-Whites from foreign countries. He obviously referred to non-Whites who visit this country and who would then not have to look for the particular sign that the hotel concerned serves non-Whites. Surely the hon. member should realize that Mr. Fourie was dealing with foreigners and not with South African Blacks. He meticulously refrained from commenting on the situation as far as South African Blacks are concerned.

*A further important argument presented itself in the evidence against all hotels being thrown open, i.e. that apart from a certain number of section 100sex hotels, there are approximately 40 hotels in South Africa who specialize in the needs of Black and Brown people. In the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, it was said that a danger exists that if all hotels should be thrown open, the business of the hotels which caters specially for Coloured people, would be prejudiced. Therefore, it is a question of discrimination against the hotels which only cater for Coloureds, Indians or Bantu at the moment.

Where does evidence of this effect appear?

I am referring to the evidence of Mr. Pieterse on page 37. It is quite clear that the hon. member did not read the evidence. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Vereeniging Mr. Pieterse said that it was a very interesting situation and that is was possible for these hotels to be affected, because it is discrimination against them; it is going to affect them detrimentally.

An important aspect in this whole matter is the opinion of the non-Whites themselves, the opinion of the leaders of the Black and the Brown people who commented in general on the draft legislation. Mr. Sonny Leon said that the new plan was, in certain respects, a breakthrough.

“In certain respects.”

Yes, he said “in certain respects”, because his idea is that it will only be four and five star hotels which will be opened to non-Whites while attention is being given to hotels with lower classifications to cater for people who cannot afford to use the more expensive hotels. This also relates to seamen visiting South African harbours and other people of similar status. Furthermore, Mr. Leon said that if we tackle things in this country in the correct way and implement this programme in the proper manner, there would be no need for the outside world to point a finger at us and that détente would then be successful. Dr. Richard van der Ross, Rector of the University of the Western Cape, Dr. H. M. Beets, minister of religion of the D.R. Mission Church in Ceres, Mr. Pat Sonn, chairman of the “Toeren Vakansieklub Afrika-Suid” and nominated member of the Coloured Representative Council, and Mr. Jetta Bulia, vice-chairman of the management committee of Lenasia, are all people who welcome this legislation. There are also various Bantu leaders who welcome this legislation, leaders such as Prof. Kware, professor in comparative education at the University of the North, who said that this step would not only contribute to restoring the human dignity of the Black man, but also to improving racial relations. He said further that this is a step in the right direction particularly as far as the thinking Black man is concerned.

In the summary: The majority decision of the Select Committee identified a clear need for places offering accommodation to Black and Brown people. The legislation provides in this need in an orderly fashion. This legislation aims to eliminate racial friction and it encourages the development of the Black and Brown hotel industry. In conclusion I should like to point out that on account of the system of hotels being classified as “international” hotels, a non-White will have legal certainty to know which hotel he is allowed to visit, because he will know which hotels are classified as “international” hotels. With the kind of hotels which is being proposed by hon. members of the Opposition and where it is left to the discretion of the hotel owner to decide which races may visit his hotel, a person can have no prior certainty as to whether he would possibly be refused admission by an hotel owner. Therefore, what we are doing, is to set legal certainty against confusion; the proposal of the United Party implies confusion as against legal certainty in the proposal of the National Party. This legislation is without a doubt a meaningful milestone on the road towards separate development.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan has quoted at length from the evidence given to the Select Committee and, indeed, I should like to do the same at a later stage. However, the hon. member has raised the question of Fedhasa, the Federated Hotel Association of Southern Africa, and he relies on the memorandum which they quoted, in relation to the Hotel Board. I find myself much more inclined to rely on the evidence which was given to the Select Committee and which tends to support the points which have been made by the hon. members sitting on my right. I should like to come back in a moment to those points.

The hon. the Minister of Justice said in his Second Reading speech when he was introducing the Bill—

Hotel facilities are at present really only enjoyed by White South Africans. When the hon. the Minister said “and so forth”, he presumably had in mind the inclusion of facilities such as restaurants as well. That sounded very encouraging and it seemed to herald a forward movement, but unfortunately this has come in a limited and very restricted way. I am afraid I have to add “and subject to qualifications” as well because this has been made clear by the intention to create a chain of so-called “international hotels” to which all South Africans irrespective of colour can go. We on these benches welcome this forward movement so far as it goes and we also welcome the fact that all foreigners are now to be treated as if they were White South Africans. Even while we are grateful for small mercies, we should like to suggest that they must be viewed at the same time in context and particularly against the other actions that the Government intends to take —the evidence given to the Select Committee—and also against the circumstances in which our country finds itself in what is after all the last quarter of the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to finish my speech. The question which needs to be put and needs to be answered is whether the Government’s proposals represent an improvement overall on the existing situation in the hotel industry in South Africa and, if so, do they go far enough?

There are four main proposals contained in the Bill The first one, to which the hon. the Minister also referred, is to clear un the present confusion which exists in the law in regard to what is and what is not permissible in so far as Black and Brown South Africans and their admission to or right to use the facilities or enjoy certain functions in hotels within our country are concerned. The second proposal is that section 113 and the consequential section 161(t) of the Liquor Act should be repealed. In the third instance there is clause 1, which seeks to amend section 7 of the principal Act. This proposed amendment deals with the position of foreigners who hold the appropriate permit or a temporary permit issued to them in terms of section 5 of the Aliens Act of 1937 and who will then be exempted from the differential provisions so that in effect they will be able to go into hotels where they will be treated as if they were White South Africans. In the fourth instance there are the provisions of the proposed section 81(1) inserted by clause 3(a) of the Bill, which envisage the creation of a category of international hotels. These are the four main thrusts which underlie the Bill and it is important to look at them both separately and in combination before we can come to a judgment in relation to the question which we have already put in regard to the overall thrust of the Government’s proposals.

The first thing that needs to be said, and this is in regard to the first of these questions, is that until the start of the discussions on this Bill, there was widespread confusion in the country as to what in fact the law was. That is an undeniable fact, and I must beg to differ from the hon. member for Potgietersrus who is not present tonight. If the hon. the Minister cares to ask the owners or the managements of the hotels in South Africa, they will confirm that they simply did not know what the law was. It was not generally known that in so far as the vast majority of the hotels were concerned there was absolutely nothing to stop Black and Brown South Africans from staying in them and from being served with meals in their rooms. Of course their freedom to enjoy or avail themselves of other facilities in the same way as Whites, such as entering bars or restaurants, was prohibited by other legislation and in particular the Liquor Act. The situation was not helped either by the evasiveness on the part of those who were approached by interested parties seeking clarity on what the law was and it matters not whether that unhelpful attitude arose from confusion in the minds of the officials of the various departments or whether it was deliberate. It was absolutely no help to an individual or a party to seek clarity from one of these departments or from the officials as to whether they needed a permit in order to be able to permit a Black or a Brown South African on to the premises or for a particular purpose because they would simply have been told that the departments were not involved in the business of giving legal advice. Indeed, in the memorandum submitted by the Department of Justice to the Select Committee, the following statement was made and I quote:

That is symptomatic of the approach which has been adopted in the past.

The hon. the Minister proposes to clear up all the confusion by the addition of a new section 81(1) which states inter alia:

The provisos for such conduct are so narrow and restrictive that the only Black and Brown South Africans who can be permitted must either be in the employment of the hotel or in the employment of a guest and they will indeed be further restricted to areas set aside for them. So the position is quite simply that when this legislation comes into force, Black and Brown South Africans will no longer have the right under the law to stay in the vast majority of hotels which they have had up to now and which was not prohibited by the Group Areas legislation in any area, nor will they have the right to attend mixed private gatherings, functions or parties in hotels. None of these gatherings, functions or parties has been banned up to now. We on these benches agree with the hon. member for Durban North that this is a very substantial loss of their present legal rights, whether in fact they have enjoyed them in practice or not. There can be no justification for removing a freedom under the law simply because it was not exercised. In this first step of the Government we find that the proposal can only be seen as a backward or retrograde step.

The second proposal relates to the repeal of section 113 and consequently, as I said, of section 161(t). As it stood, section 113 meant that no holder of a hotel licence or his agents—the management—could refuse to provide meals and lodging to any person demanding the same and, likewise, the holder of a licence for a restaurant could not refuse to serve meals. If he did so without a very clear-cut reason he was guilty of an offence unless he could subsequently prove to the magistrate that there was a clear-cut cause. If he was taken to court by the person who was refused admission, the licensee could not sign an admission of guilt and had to appear in court. In practice this section which has been on the Statute Book since 1928 and in respect of which—unless the hon. the Minister can correct me—there are no decided cases in South Africa as to how it should be interpreted, has I think operated too much in favour of guests or those seeking to use the facilities in the sense that the balance was weighted too much against those who were responsible for running hotels and restaurants. Whereas we agree with that—and it may well be that this particular section has its origins in the past when there was no Hotel Board or other pieces of legislation which are now in force or which may have had a historical connection with the selling of liquor, we on these benches still have grave reservation about the repeal of this section.

We are therefore pleased that the hon. the Minister stated in his Second Reading speech—

We were pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say that, but we must set against that that one of he prime causes of our grave concern arose from what the Department of Justice said in evidence, namely—

Race should not in our view be the criterion. We feel that within any particular category within the law, the management of a hotel or a restaurant should certainly have a stronger right than it has at present to refuse admission to Black, Brown or White when there is good and sufficient cause to do so, but that no such justification should be allowed to be found or shown on the basis of colour and race. In the end—and this will happen too in South Africa—those people who provide a service to the public, such as the owners, the management or licence-holders of hotels and restaurants, must be placed under an obligation to serve all, except where good and sufficient cause can be shown, in so far as the individual is concerned, for refusing to do so. In regard therefore to the second main point, we on these benches will withhold judgment on this proposal until we see how it operates in practice and how the hon. the Minister intends to avoid any abuse in this regard. The third proposal is to allow foreign visitors to our country, who are in possession of a temporary permit, into hotels and restaurants. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out this is simply to legalize what in effect has become accepted practice. As such this is a proposal that we welcome. I should think that everybody is aware of the embarrassment this has caused, on occasions in the past, to the management of hotels and restaurants. What is more important is that this has also done serious harm to our country as a result of the ill-feeling that it has engendered. As one would expect, this was, of course, confirmed by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his evidence. In reply to the question as to whether it would not be a solution to give both hotels and restaurants the right to determine for themselves whether or not to allow a visitor and whether it would not preclude any kind of embarrassment that may arise, he said the following—

He went on further to say (page 60, paragraphs 305 and 306)—

There we have the point of view of the Department of Foreign Affairs. To come back again to the hon. member for Brakpan, this was also confirmed by one of the representatives of Fedhasa when he said—

He went on to say—

Sir, we can therefore certainly support the third proposal of the Government. Now we come to the fourth proposal, and that is the creation of a chain of international hotels which would be open to all foreigners and indeed to all South Africans irrespective of colour. As has been pointed out, the evidence given to the Select Committee was that initially it was envisaged that there would be ten such hotels. I did, however, notice that the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech that not only would there be 10 such hotels in the principal cities of our country, but that there would also be a necessity for them in certain other places. We on these benches certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will move as quickly as possible to increase the number and to extend this chain of international hotels, as they are called. The point has rightly been raised by the hon. member on my right, who has just sat down, that the question of economics is also involved, of course. Clearly it would be to the economic advantage of one hotel, as opposed to another, to meet the conditions laid down by the hon. the Minister to qualify to hold a licence as an international hotel. I do not think that that form of placing hotels into such categories underlies the general thrust of this particular Bill, but it needs to be mentioned. The mechanics of the creation of such hotels involves three steps, namely, (1) the holder of the licence must apply; (2) the National Liquor Board, after such investigation and inquiry as it may deem fit, makes a recommendation to the hon. the Minister; (3) then the hon. the Minister may —unfortunately it is “may” and not “shall” —authorize the licence to be given subject to whatever conditions or restrictions he may deem fit. The hon. the Minister gave some indication as to what he had in mind in regard to the latter when he said—

Sir, of course the creation of international hotels, in addition to the Holiday Inn at Jan Smuts, to which all South Africans irrespective of colour can go, is an improvement, albeit it a very limited one as presently visualized.

We want to submit that there is no evidence whatsoever in that given to the Select Committee, which all hon. members have, to support the drawing of such an arbitrary line, neither is there any support for the granting of such discretionary powers to the hon. the Minister. Indeed, as we intend to show, hotel and restaurant managers feel that they should be entitled to choose for themselves whether they wish to admit anyone irrespective of colour, South African or foreigner, to their premises. If we are to have a transitional phase on the road to where all public facilities are open to all, except where good and sufficient cause can be shown, then that would be a much more appropriate staging post than this proposal. However, before we turn to the evidence in support of our arguments I should like to raise the same question which the hon. member to the right of me raised with the hon. the Minister in regard to his intention to lay down certain conditions and restrictions as far as the granting of a licence to an international hotel is concerned. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether these restrictions will apply only to Black and Brown South Africans or to foreigners as well? I ask this question because the hon. the Minister is as well aware as I am that the position as it now stands is that foreigners, once they are in possession of the appropriate permit, may use all or any of the facilities provided by a hotel. There is no restriction as to what restaurants or bars they may use or upon their admission to places where music is provided for guests to dance to or, in certain cases, to swimming-pools in which they can bathe should they wish to do so. The hon. the Minister specifically mentioned dancing and swimming in his speech. If he specifically lays down that these facilities shall not be used as one of his conditions, to which people does that prohibition apply? Does it apply only to Brown and Black South Africans or to all people of colour? If it is the former, then it is blatant discrimination against our own people and if it is the latter, it is another backward step which is bound to expose us to the very embarrassment and criticism we are trying to negate.

Mr. Speaker, I should like now to examine the evidence to see whether there are any reasonable grounds to support the drawing of the arbitrary line such as the Government now proposes. Here I submit, as one would expect, that the most telling evidence was given by the representatives of the hotel industry in our country. After all, these are the people who have to face and deal with the problems and embarrassments which can and do arise from our laws. These people were asked to comment in regard to various aspects of this matter. The first point they raised was this—

I should like now to quote certain questions and answers from the evidence in order to illustrate certain points that I have made—

In order to restore the balance in regard to what the hon. member for Brakpan said, I should like to make the following quotations form the evidence of the representatives of the hotel industry in drawing a comparison between our country and Rhodesia. They said—

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. I have quoted at such length from the evidence of those who run our hotel industry to demonstrate that it is their view, firstly, that hotels and management should have the right to choose for themselves whether they wish to be open or not, and as a corollary, that this should not be left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice, provided the right to refuse admission to any person is reserved to the management of the hotel or restaurant, but not on the basis of colour; secondly, that there are no reasonable grounds on the basis of the evidence of actual experience to change that view; thirdly, that all the problems which have arisen did so at the front desk and have their origin in the law as to who might be admitted and to what; and, fourthly, that left without prohibition and without division into categories by law, it is primarily a matter of economics and choice as to where people go.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches could therefore have hoped that these basic facts would have been taken into account in the framing of this Bill. Unfortunately, we find the contrary. To sum up, we cannot support the first proposal; we hold judgment on the second; we can approve of the third; and the fourth brings about a very limited improvement. Weighing up these four factors, we in these benches cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that the entire issue in respect of this Bill concerns clause 3. All the other clauses were supported in the Select Committee by the representative of both the Progressive Party as well as the representatives of the United Party. This means that we are in fact disputing clause 3, which deals with the handling of our South African non-Whites. I regret that I cannot go into the speech made by the hon. member in detail, since my time is very limited. The objection of the United Party and the Progressive Party are primarily threefold. Firstly they make the accusation that this legislation is discriminatory towards the non-Whites in South Africa. Secondly they make the accusation that persons are being deprived of vested rights. Thirdly their accusation is that this legislation implies that some hotels are being discriminated against in the economic sphere. These are the three objections they have to this legislation. That such mellifluous words as “discrimination” can fall from the lips of both those parties, astonishes one. The United Party has still not decided how it is going to discriminate between the wealthy and the poor voters, and the Progressive Party even envisages compiling separate voters’ lists for literate and illiterate voters. The entire standpoint of the United Party and the Progressive Party in respect of the opening of all hotels to non-Whites, must be seen in conjunction with the repeal of section 113, of which the hon. member furnished details. I am prepared to suggest that if section 113 should remain on the Statute Book they would not introduce this motion of theirs. To test their good faith and to test their goodwill, since they are trying to imply that they are not the discriminatory party, and that it is this party that discriminates, I challenge them to plead for the retention of section 113. Sir, this they will never do, for they would like to wash their hands in innocence and then create in regard to the outside world and the non-Whites the image that they are the party that wishes to eliminate discrimination. They place discrimination on the shoulders of the hoteliers, for they foresee that the hoteliers are the people who will have to apply discrimination. We know now what role they are going to play in public. They are going to pretend that they pleaded for open hotels, but when hoteliers tell them that they are not prepared to open their hotels, then they say to the hoteliers that they are sorry but that they pleaded for the abolition of section 113 so that they could have the right of admission. This is the game that side of the House is playing. On the other hand, it is the standpoint of this side of the House that where hotel facilities exist in non-White residential areas, those facilities will be used and the facilities in White areas will not be shared. The plea which is being advanced by the hon. Opposition, namely that all hotels should be thrown open…

No one said that.

Of course. The hon. member does not even know what his party proposes.

Of course. The hon. member does not know what he is proposing. The hon. Opposition is advocating that all hotels should be opened and with that…

All hoteliers should have the right to be able to decide for themselves.

… they are depriving non-White entrepreneurs of the right to create facilities within non-White residential areas. It is the standpoint of this side of the House that, for those categories among the non-White population, basic amenities will be provided until such time as their own amenities have been established. A fairer standpoint cannot be stated, particularly if we see it in the light of the fact that the hotels which are at issue here, are hotels which are situated within White areas, and which are primarily geared to meeting the needs of the Whites. This side of the House is prepared to share those amenities with those non-Whites who need these basic amenities. Hon. members are now alleging that people are being deprived of a vested right here. Of what vested right are they being deprived? There was a vested right, but it was a right which did not grant full rights to non-Whites in hostels. It was a vested right which has up to now been more of a de jure right than a de facto right. This side of the House is prepared to grant those people among whom the need exists to make use of hotel amenities within the White area, this right so that they can receive their full-fledged amenities. I cannot see that this implies any unfairness. The United Party and the Progressive Party have encounted a Bill here in regard to which they cannot outbid one another; therefore they are agreeing on it. [Interjection.] Both sides have it in the back of their minds that discrimination will be committed by the hoteliers to whom they are now giving the right to reserve admission to their hotels. I now want to ask the hon. member, who is interrupting me so frequently, whether he is prepared to prove his good faith to these non-Whites and to request that section 113 remain. I am asking the hon. member a question. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Johannesburg North says that he is prepared to request that section 113 should continue to exist. Is the hon. member prepared to propose an amendment during the Committee Stage that section 113 should be retained? [Interjections.] No, the hon. member is not prepared to do so. I am asking the hon. member for Durban North whether he is prepared to advocate the retention of section 113.

The hon. member does not know what it contains.

We can now see what it is that the hon. Opposition is hiding behind.