as Chairman, presented a report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders [S.C. 10—’75].

stated that unless notice of objection to the report was given at the next sitting of the House, the report would be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the following announcement on the business of the House for next week: Up to Tuesday evening we shall continue to deal with legislation as it appears on the Order Paper. On Wednesday precedence will be given to the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice. After the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice has been disposed of, we shall again proceed with legislation if his legislation has not been disposed of by that time, and subsequent to that precedence will be given to Orders of the Day Nos. 7, 8 and 13.

What about the Vote of the Minister of Police?

That is included under the Justice Vote.

But they are different Votes.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I wish to inform the House that it appeared from a factual report submitted to me in terms of section 8 of the Affected Organizations Act, 1974 (Act No. 31 of 1974), that politics are being engaged in by or through the organization known as The Christian Institute of Southern Africa with the aid of or in cooperation with or in consultation with or under the influence of an organization or person abroad.

It was consequently decided to recommend to the State President that The Christian Institute of Southern Africa be declared, in terms of the said Act, to be an affected organization.

On 28 May 1975 the State President approved the recommendation and a Proclamation in which The Christian Institute of Southern Africa is declared to be an affected organization appeared in today’s Government Gazette.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at the Third Reading with a Bill in exactly the same form as it was when it was read a second time. We find it necessary in the national interest, as we did at the Second Reading, to support this Bill at the Third Reading, providing as it does for powers for the Government to regulate the use of petrol or any other goods in the national interest. I must say at this stage, Sir, that we are sorry that many of the ameliorations which we attempted to have accepted were in fact rejected by the Government. I want to warn again that unless this Act and the regulations under the Act are administered in a reasonable way in future, the Government will find itself in exactly the position in which it found itself when the hon. the Prime Minister felt obliged to make a statement changing the whole administration as it has been up to now. Sir, I think evidence of this is contained in what happened in the past, and this is supported by the fact that during the debate the hon. member for Parow, the Chief Whip on the Government side, could agree that in fact the regulations were used by local authorities unreasonably to milk the public so far as the speed regulations were concerned. They were purely used for money-making. But my point, Sir, is that three successive Ministers allowed this to happen, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that he will not allow any further abuse of these regulations.

An announcement has already been made that up to 90 km the local authorities will deal with contraventions of speed limits in terms of their own regulations.

That is so; I know that, but what I am talking about is the application of these regulations. The other thing that I warned about was that some sort of laxity must be given in respect of that 90 km as well. In this connection I refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Eksteen. Sir, the fact of the matter is that the Bill, in so far as certain of the administrative provisions in clause 2 are concerned, is in our view unreasonable, and if this measure is going to be applied, then a lot of discretion is going to have to be used by the persons applying the law to ensure that it is not applied exactly as it now stands, because if it is applied strictly as it stands without the exercise of a reasonable discretion, there will be an unreasonable application of it and then you wall once again lose the support of the public. Sir, the load which is placed upon the employer is, I think, unreasonable, as we have indicated. We have attempted to make this measure more reasonable, and if in the future there is any public complaint, then let it be known now that the blame will lie entirely with the Government. It will lie squarely on their shoulders. We have done our bit, Sir; we can do no more, and the Government will now have to take responsibility for the manner in which this measure is administered.

Finally, Sir, if the hon. the Minister seeks to validate the regulations that have been made in the past, then I want to warn him again that I do not believe that the manner in which he is attempting to do it in sub-clause (2) of clause 1 will achieve his purpose, for the reasons that I have given. This is our attitude to the Bill. For the rest, it is now entirely in the hands of the Government. We can do no more ourselves. But because the Bill taken as a whole and in principle is necessary in the national interest, we will not oppose it at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, we have come now to the stage of discussing the effect which this Bill is going to have and the manner in which it is going to be applied. The hon. member for Durban North has pointed certain things out to the hon. the Minister. I just want to expand a little on what he has said regarding the amelioration of the provisions of clause 2 of this Bill, the new section 16A. We pointed out to the hon. the Minister that there is a difference in the relationship between a principal and an agent and the relationship which exists between an employer and his employee, i.e. somebody who is directly under his control. As this Bill stands at the moment, we can have the situation whereby the hon. the Minister of Defence, who is the chairman of the National Party in the Cape, can find himself charged in a court of law because one of the said Cape organizers of the National Party exceeded the speed limit while going through Fort Beaufort. The hon. the Minster shakes his head.

No, I did not.

I want to say that this is exactly what is written into this Bill; this is what can happen. But we do not mind if it happens to the hon. the Minister of Defence. In fact, we would like to see it happen to him. But when you think of the innocent people who can find themselves embroiled in something like this, the matter becomes serious. The relationship between a principal and an agent is important in this respect. As we have explained, when it comes to the relationship between an employer and his employees, people under his direct control, we accept this wholeheartedly, but I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, before he goes to the Other Place, to have another look at the provisions regarding the relationship between a principal and his agent. The hon. member for Durban Point told us yesterday of what could happen with an agent who was not under the control of his principal, where the principal had nothing whatsoever to do with the running of his business. He does not know who he employs, or whether he even employs people. But as a result of the action of the agent, or his employee, who may be 600 km away —but that makes no difference, how far away he is; the point is that he is not under his control—but the principal can find himself in trouble because of the actions of an agent or the employee of the agent, somebody over whom he has no control whatsoever. While we are talking about this I should like to ask the Minister what he is going to do with a representative, a licensed agent in terms of the Licences Act, licensed in Natal to represent manufacturers, who has in his vehicle samples of six different manufacturers, six different principals, and he exceeds a speed limit and he is charged. Which of those six principals is going to share the responsibility with him, or are all six of those principals going to share the liability? That is the position with the Bill as it is now, and that is why we have asked the Minister to consider the amendments which we have moved in the Committee Stage, and why I appeal to him again to reconsider the matter before he takes this measure to the Other Place.

But there is a further and even more drastic case which can arise, and that is the case of a house-owner who decides to sell his property and for that engages an estate agent. That estate agent is then acting on behalf of the house-owner. Now, on his way with prospective clients in his car, he gets picked up with 30 litres of petrol in the boot of his car because he needs 30 litres to see him through the week-end in order to take all the prospective clients out to view the property of the principal. We then find the innocent house-owner in the position where he can be charged. I am not saying he will be charged, but he can be charged in terms of the provisions of this Bill. He is absolutely innocent and has no control whatsoever over whether his estate agent carries 30 litres of petrol in the boot of his car or not. But he may find himself being charged with an offence over which he had no control whatsoever. I believe that the hon. the Minister must take another look at this.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go back to the arguments we have already raised to the hon. the Minister, I simply want to restate our position in regard to this Bill as succinctly as possible. Firstly, we agree that the Minister should have the right to regulate the use and consumption of petrol and, secondly, when it comes to the clause which puts the obligation upon the employer, we still—despite yesterday’s extensive debate on this subject—regard it as unreasonable. I should like to repeat the remark we made yesterday that more and more of this sort of presumption is being introduced by the Government into every law affecting the business community. For example, the same provision is in the Trade Practices Act. All we wish to say is that it puts an unreasonable onus of proof on the business community. We have dealt with the different subsections which state what they have to prove in order not to be found guilty. In order to meet these requirements —and the other requirements as contained in the Trade Practices Act other measures because, presumably, similar provisions are going to be put in every Act affecting the business world—it is going to require of the employers—and there does not seem to be many employers of large numbers of people on the other side of the House—to go into an unreasonable degree of policing the activities of each and every one of their employees. It is going to take time, it is going to take red tape, and sooner or later it can only be to the detriment of the country, in the sense that the time allowed for initiative and enterprise, if one is going to carry out this sort of obligation towards one’s employees, will be getting smaller and smaller.

Mr. Speaker, my reply to the arguments which have been raised, will be very brief. I think I should make a few remarks which are relevant. The first is that the Government has, under the circumstances, taken two decisions which in my opinion are of cardinal importance. The first is that the fuel saving measures, in some form or other, have to be maintained, and that the country’s future transport pattern will have to adapt itself to these. The Government took a second decision as well, which was that the public and the motor industry should be informed of the fact that petroleum saving measures will for the foreseeable future be a permanent arrangement owing to the considerations which are the result of the international oil circumstances, and that we shall have to live with this in the long term. One major principle was overlooked to a considerable extent in the debate, and that is that this legislation has to be complementary to the existing legislation in order to give effect to the specific decisions. With all due respect I want to say to the hon. members opposite that it is of little avail to support the principle contained in clause 1 of the Bill while they object to the subsequent clause, which deals with the effective implementation of the legislation.

That does not follow.

If hon. members were to glance again at the amendments which were proposed during the Committee Stage by the opposite side and which I was unable to accept, they would see that in toto all of them amount to my making the legislation completely ineffective.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says it is nonsense; let him think this if he likes, but these are the facts.

Why do you think do we support it in the Second Reading and in the Third Reading?

I want to repeat that the hon. member, after we had discussed the Bill, rose again to say that he supported the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for Johannesburg North did the same. Although the hon. member supported it at the outset, the hon. member is now levelling the accusation at us, in anticipation, that innocent people will find themselves in court as a result of the implications of this legislation. The hon. members, through this standpoint of theirs, are merely doing precisely what they did before, namely to build up a psychological resistance to the saving measures.

Oh rubbish!

The hon. member may say “rubbish” if he likes. He has every right to do so. I now want to put a question to the hon. member for Durban North, a question which I have put repeatedly. Since section 2(b) was put into operation on 16 November 1973, which of the quantitative steps taken by the Government in implementation of the principle, have hon. members on the opposite side supported, apart from supporting the principle in general terms? There is nothing whatsoever on record indicating that hon. members supported the quantitative measures. I thank the hon. members for the fact that they support the principle. However, I am again issuing the warning that we should not, in our support, merely do lip service to a principle, while in practice, with a different approach, we make successful implementation of the measure impossible.

On your own admission, the former regulations were unreasonable. The Prime Minister himself said so by implication.

The hon. member for Durban North is doing something which many other people do. By omitting to mention certain things, he is stating incorrect standpoints. Surely that was not all the hon. the Prime Minister said. In fact, the hon. member argued yesterday that the hon. the Prime Minister had said that the consideration was no longer one of availability, but financial. Anyone who draws such an inference from the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister is surely being wilful and nothing else. Surely further considerations have come into the picture. What I am now going to say, I am saying because I bear responsibility, although I did not at the time occupy this particular post. It is a mistake now simply —I emphasize the word “simply”—to accuse local authorities, as a generalization, of having taken advantage of the measure. I am saying that it is wrong to raise this as a general hypothesis. I am not suggesting for one moment that there are no local authorities that did in fact do this. However, what are the facts? We must have the facts on record now. When the measure was announced in 1973, an emergency existed which we had to cope with. Other countries had to cope with it as well. At that stage there was no information immediately available to the department enabling it to apply the measures as effectively and reasonably as we would, seen in retrospect, have been able to do. Therefore the Government decided that a limit of 50 km should be imposed in respect of urban areas, and then there were still the other restrictions as well. I am not trying to escape from the facts, for it would be misleading if I were to do that. The Government requested local authorities and administrations to use these measures in order to maintain these restrictions as well in the urban areas. Subsequently it was decided to raise the limit from 50 km to 60 km. I do not want to burden this House with a long list of figures now. But even this had an effect on the number of patients in the hospitals, a startling effect. I repeat: These measures were irritating. I want to go further and say that some of the measures which now apply, are also irritating. The fact of the matter, and this is what is at issue, is that in spite of the irritation and in spite of the frustrations, we have to deem it to be in the national interests that the frustrations and irritations should be borne. This is part of the sacrifice which is implicit in these measures. Honestly, if I am not able to bring this home, then I apologize.

Are you going to carry on as you did in the past?

I want to reiterate that my department and the policy committee of the Cabinet considered the amendments of and the adjustments to the measures for a long time before we asked the hon. the Prime Minister to announce them. Our approach was that if we asked the motorist and the general public to give us a greater measure of co-operation in future we should try, on our part, to make certain concessions. What are they? The concessions were intended to eliminate the most irritating aspects, and for that reason we decided that for the restrictions which were introduced in terms of these measures, the provincial authorities and the local authorities should make the other traffic and speed arrangements in terms of their own legislation. However, I want to say at once that it is not correct to contend that 80 or 90 km/h is the best speed. That is not so. According to all evidence which we have from scientific sources, the most economic speed, seen from a fuel saving point of view, is 60 km/h for all vehicles, large or small, and equipped with conventional or automatic gearboxes. I want to repeat that seen from a fuel saving point of view, this is the most economical speed. But there are other considerations which have to be weighed up against this. That is why the Government took the announced decisions. The hon. member is now asking me whether present fuel saving measures are being applied reasonably. I think the hon. member is right to ask me this question. My reply to that is, firstly, that I do not want to use fuel saving measures as a new source of revenue for the state, or for any other bodies and, secondly, that I expect these people who have to apply the law not to treat a person who does not want to contravene the fuel saving measures as such, in other words, as Mr. Justice Eksteen said, who exceeds the limit by a few kilometres on an upgrade or a downgrade, as an offender. The person who ignores the fuel saving measures—and speed is the indicator of that—should be dealt with as a person who is harming the national interest. There must be no illusion whatsoever about this.

The hon. member again argued that the provision of the proposed section 2(2), which will give the legislation retrospective effect, will not be effective, and that I will not achieve with it what I want to achieve. I do not agree with the hon. member on this score, nor do I agree with the approach adopted by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

I said it merely as a friendly warning.

Yes, I understand it in that way. I do not agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and I do not want to make a long debate of it. It would be astonishing if the hon. members of that group were to agree with the presumption clause. I do not think that their judgment of what is in South Africa’s interests corresponds to ours. I do not think their methods and practices correspond to ours. However, I shall leave it at that.

Finally, I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that although there is a difference between the principal/agent relationship, and the employer/employee relationship, any lawyer, such as my hon. friend directly opposite me, will be able to tell him that the difference is not clearly defined. It has not even been clearly defined by our courts. However, I want to give him the assurance that in the application of the legislation, as has also happened in the application of legislation with similar provisions, the circumstances in which an offence by an agent or an employee occurs relative to the position of the employer or the principal, are always a factor which is taken into consideration firstly by investigating officers and secondly by the persons who have to decide whether proceedings will be instituted.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I had been indicating briefly that this Bill is aimed at the maintenance of identity on the one hand and the recognition of human dignity on the other. In the remainder of the time at my disposal, I should like to point out to this House the contrast between the proposal of the National Party, as embodied in the Bill, on the one hand, and the attitude, on the other, of the joint Opposition. Their attitude is that every hotel owner should have the right to admit whoever he pleases to his hotel regardless of race, colour or ethnic ties.

This has, after all, been the position all these years.

I want to contrast these two possible solutions with one another with reference to two questions. In the first place I want to ask which of the two solutions would best eliminate friction, and in the second place, which of the two solutions would best eliminate discrimination.

What friction?

There are two levels of friction which I could distinguish in this regard. The first is that a lack of facilities in respect of bona fide needs could have a disruptive effect on sound relations, for a lack of facilities for all population groups is unfair, and where there is a need and this need is frustrated, there could be friction. The National Party perceives this, and for that reason it is creating the facilities in terms of the Bill and according to the needs that have been identified by evidence. In addition to separate hotels for Black people, Brown people and Indians, which it wants to encourage, the National Party, with the establishment of international hotels through the Minister at the request of hotel owners, is creating additional facilities to eliminate this point of friction, and to prevent the occurrence of further friction. Built into the Bill as well is the formula that, as the needs may perhaps change, the hon. the Minister shall be afforded an opportunity to provide more facilities. Provision is therefore being made for the friction and the irritation caused by too few facilities.

The second kind of friction which could occur, is associated with the general distribution of facilities, which could be a consequence of the proposal of the United Party. The throwing open of all hotels to all people constitutes a vast friction potential. Why is it the policy of those hon. members that there should be separate schools? Why is it their policy that there should be separate residential areas? Why is it their policy that a distinction should be drawn in so many spheres? It is because they perceive that a friction potential exists if one allows the peoples of South Africa to intermingle in all spheres, and if one allows integration.

For the same reason there will be friction if all hotels are thrown open. I should like to mention an example from the evidence of Fedhasa, which, according to hon. members, is so opposed to this Bill. I am quoting from the reply to question 196, on page 41 of the report of the Select Committee, in which Mr. Pieterse said the following [translation]—

This is the evidence from the hotel industry itself, i.e. that they realize that difficult situations could arise, and that friction could arise. Therefore the National Party, in this Bill, is maintaining a fundamental pattern of separate hotels, while it is nevertheless making facilities available. But when we consider the collective feeling on this matter of the United Party, the Progressive Party and the Reform Party, the entire conglomerate, what do we see? In respect of the availability of facilities their proposal will only help if the hotel owners co-operate, and are they unable to perceive that there is a serious risk that many of the hotel owners will not admit people of all nations and races? Are they unable to perceive the friction potential of a situation in which every Brown person and every Black person, in terms of their proposal, will be uncertain, when he walks into an hotel, whether he is going to be shown the door, or whether he is going to be accepted? Can they conceive of a greater source of friction?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is he going to force the owners of open hotels to serve all people?

I shall come to that when I come to the question of discrimination.

Just remember to answer it.

The second aspect, namely that friction may arise if all hotels are open and if all hotel owners were to co-operate, is not being eliminated under their proposal; they are in fact promoting it. I therefore want to say that the National Party’s Bill will prevent friction and will consequently promote sound ethnic relations, while their Bill, if the hotel owners do not co-operate, will have an insulting and irritating effect, for Brown people and Black people are going to be shown the door, or if hotel owners all throw their doors open, will have an irritating effect as far as the White are concerned, who were accustomed to separate facilities, who have a need for these, and who are not ashamed to express that need.

The second question is: which solution, the National Party’s Bill or the United Party’s amendment, will do most to eliminate discrimination? To answer this question, we must first clarify two matters. In the first place I want to state that it is not only a Government that could discriminate, and that a business or an individual could also discriminate. Does any hon. member on that side dispute this statement? They agree. The second statement I want to make is that there are going to be many hotel owners who will refuse to admit Indian, Coloured and Black people. Do they agree with that? I just want to prove this to them further, if there is anyone who feels unhappy about this, and refer to question 212 on page 43 of the original evidence before the committee, which was submitted by the hon. member for East London City, as follows—

To this Mr. Freedberg replied—

They therefore concede that an individual or a business may discriminate, and they concede that individuals, hoteliers and business concerns are going to refuse to admit Black, Coloured or Indian people.

Not on the basis of Colour.

I have just quoted Mr. Freedberg’s reply to you. Mr. Freedberg conceded this in reply to the question whether problems were going to arise in certain communities—this is what the question implied.

Not on a basis of race.

I want to ask hon. member whether those of their supporters who are hotel owners in small country towns are going to allow Black, Brown or Indian people to enter their hotels and make use of the bar facilities? I challenge hon. members opposite to go and tell those people that this is their policy. If we accept these two statements now—hon. members opposite conceded them to me—I want to say: Let us test the United Party’s proposal.

May I ask a question?

I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to do so in a moment. Hundreds of hotel owners throughout the entire country will refuse to allow people on the basis of race and colour. They will then, within the intention of the Opposition’s view and opinion, be guilty of discrimination. In other words, that side is saying that there may be discrimination as long as an hotel owner runs the risk of discriminating, as long as we place the burden of taking the decision on his shoulders, and as long as we do not place an Act on the Statute Book which might look like discrimination. That would not do. The hon. member may now ask his question.

May I ask the hon. member whether he believes that the hotel management in an open hotel in the chain that is going to be created by the hon. the Minister of Justice should be allowed to discriminate against any guest on the basis of colour only?

Because we are aware of the risk that hotel owners may do this, this legislation is in fact providing that there will be hotels, the owners of which will not be entitled to distinguish on the basis of race and colour. Are the hon. members unable to perceive that this is the way in which we are preventing discrimination by hotel owners? We are establishing international hotels, and in those hotels the hotel owner will not be entitled to discriminate on the basis of race and colour.

What proof have you for saying that?

Because he has made application. He has said to us: I want my hotel to be one which receives people of all nations. That is the difference. On the other hand we are preventing hotel owners or individuals from taking the decisions throughout the country as to whether or not they are going to admit people, and in that way perhaps incurring the wrath of their other clients. We on this side are not afraid to govern; we are not so lacking in courage that we wish to place decisions of cardinal importance, such as these decisions, in the bands of businessmen. This is a situation which affects ethnic relations, and for that reason it is the responsibility of the Government to establish a framework which will ensure that individual decisions do not mar ethnic relations.

I want to return to the question put by the hon. member for East London City. In fact, I think I have already replied to this. He asked whether we are going to force them to do this. By implication we are eliminating the risk that non-Whites will be shown the door, except when they are shown the door for the same reasons as those for which a White person would have been shown the door, for example, for having been under the influence of liquor, or poorly attired, or having caused a disturbance, or for whatever other reasons.

You have dug yourself a bigger grave now.

The philosophy of that side is clearly revealed in questions which the hon. member for Johannesburg north and others put during this evidence. Their approach was that the matter would sort itself out on economic grounds. Just as they want to sort out their franchise on economic grounds, so they believe that this matter will be able to sort itself out on economic grounds. Sir, they only move in four or five star hotels. They are only in charge of three, four and five star hotels. They do not care about the Black masses, the Brown masses or the White masses who will have to rub shoulder in one star hotels, and incidents which will result from that. They are still adherents of the old, typical liberal school of thought; in other words help the upper layers, and simply let the bottom layers struggle along.

It is hypocrisy.

Sir, we want to create decent facilities for all, in an orderly way, which will ensure good order in the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must withdraw that word.

Sir, I said it is hypocrisy. I did not say that they are hypocritical, but I withdraw it.

Sir, I want to sum up by asking: What is discriminatory in this Bill? Seen within the context of South Africa’s present situation, this Bill is aimed at ensuring legal security for all population groups at strategic places, according to the needs as identified, by giving them facilities which they will be able to know with certainty will be available to them. There is provision in this Bill for the expansion of these facilities if this should be necessary, and all this is being done within a framework in which it is the policy of the Government to stimulate the establishment of further hotels for Black, Brown and Indian people.

Sir, this debate simply brings us back to the old question, namely whether it is discrimination if a people states that it wants to separate itself from all other peoples on various levels. This side says that it is not discrimination as long as it is done in a fair and just manner. The Opposition, in this matter as well, is falling between the two stools it always tries to sit on, namely that it is prepared on the one hand—and now I am referring in particular to the official Opposition—to differentiate, as I have already indicated in respect of schools, residential areas, etc., but that on the other hand it wants to create an image of not drawing a distinction between people. Sir, this Bill is positive and fair; it is an outstanding example of what the Government means when it says: I am opposed to discrimination, but I differentiate for the sake of good order, and for the sake of the welfare and the well-being of all peoples in South Africa.

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging ended his speech on what he calls a high note. He says that this legislation is an excellent example of the way in which this Nationalist Government is legislating. I agree with him 100%. It is an excellent example, Sir, of the megalomania of this Government, which cannot keep its fingers out of anybod’s private business, which persists in sticking its clammy, sticky little claw into the everyday living of every person in this country …

Right up to the elbow.

… and which will not allow any person to decide for himself what he may or may not do. Sir, I agree with the hon. member that this is an excellent example, and I want to say that our enemies overseas are going to accept it as an excellent example, too, not because of what we are saying on this side of the House, but because of what is written in the Bill by that Government. Do they think that the people outside can only hear and that they cannot read? The hon. the Minister can wave his hand as much as he likes. He is the one who has done the harm to South Africa, as I will show a little later in my speech. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says “We do not want to allow hotel owners to discriminate because we will not put them in a position to do so.” But they will discriminate; the Government will discriminate. That is exactly what they are doing, and for what reason are they going to discriminate? The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke of friction, friction between White and non-White. He said friction would be caused because there were too few facilities, friction which would be caused because there would be separate but not equal facilities. Sir, I want to ask him: Where are there tourist hotels for non-Whites in this country today? Is there not friction today because there are not facilities for the non-White people when they travel on our roads?

But this Act wants to create facilities.

The hon. member says this Act wants to create facilities. He must come to terms with his Minister, because the Minister told us that there would be 10 international hotels in the country.

Even the chairman of the Liquor Board, who acts under the direct control of the Minister, went so far as to specify how many there would be in each of the cities leaving out 99,5% of the Republic of South Africa where there will be no facilities whatsoever.

What about those who cannot go to five-star hotels?

That is the point. These are only going to be international class hotels, and just think of the cost. This is economic discrimination that the Government is now practising as well. It is not only discrimination on the ground of colour, but economic discrimination against those people, compelling them to go to the five-star hotels where they will be robbed. I say that deliberately. The hon. member for Vereeniging will know that we are not only defending the five-star hotels. I want to make an appeal today to every hotel-keeper in this country, every one of the 1 268 licensees who have the right in terms of the Act to admit non-White people, to do so immediately. It is their own option. I appeal to them. I am not like the Government. I do not compel them, but appeal to them to admit all civilized, responsible, well-dressed and well-meaning people in this country, irrespective of race or colour. If they are civilized and they are respectable, they should be admitted to the hotels. I appeal to them today to do so. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is “bromming” away over there. He has unlimited time.

He is worried. [Laughter.]

Yes. It is always a sign that he is worried. Whenever we make a point he sits there and “broms”. Now, Sir, let us come back and let us be serious about this matter. The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about friction. I want to ask him where there is more friction between White and non-White in this country today: In the Post Office, where there are separate facilities and these people are insulted every time they are sent to another door to be served by another person under different conditions, or in my supermarket where they all rub shoulders and all are served in the same way? Where is more friction? I want to say here and now there is no problem in my supermarket; there is no problem in any of these supermarkets in Cape Town, where White, Coloured, Black and Indian rub shoulders, get the same service, are served by the same people, pay the same prices and have the same facilities. There are no problems at all.

Do they serve liquor there?

Think of the resentment which is engendered by every one of these Government departments, under that Government, where these people are insulted by being compelled to go in by a separate door and to use separate facilities.

And private schools?

What is our policy on schools? Our policy on schools is that separate schools shall be provided for those who wish to be separate. [Interjections.] Why must they be compelled to go to the same school if they do not wish to? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should not interject so much.

With respect, Sir, this Government would apply one of the two extremes: They will either compel the parents to send their children to separate schools or compel the parents to send their children to integrated schools. We do not take that line; we will provide the facilities for those who want them. The hon. member for Vereeniging took us to task and said that we had moved that all hotels should be open. I agree with him. We agree that all hotels should be open. He then quoted from question 212 on page 43 of the Report of the Select Committee where my hon. friend the hon. member for East London City asked the following question:

The answer given by Mr. Freedberg on behalf of Fedhasa was:

This is quite correct. But that hon. member draws the wrong conclusion from it because he chooses to ignore the previous replies given by Mr. Freedberg to questions 143 and 144. In reply to question 143 Mr. Freedberg said:

In reply to question 144, Mr. Freedberg said:

What is Mr. Freedberg saying? He is saying exactly what our amendment moved in the Select Committee was saying, namely that the hotelkeeper should have the right to choose for himself. All of us who frequent hotels, including one-star hotels, see above the door of every hotel that the right of admission is reserved. That will remain and we want to see that it should remain. If the hotelkeeper wishes to admit non-White people, let him do so, for Pete’s sake. Why should he be prohibited from allowing them in?

If he does not, will it be discrimination?

If he does not wish to, it is his own personal decision and will not be discrimination. Discrimination is when it is forced by this Government on the people on the grounds of colour alone. When an hotelier puts above his door that the right of admission is reserved, he has the right to refuse admission to any person he chooses, on whatever ground he chooses. That, I believe should be free.

That is discrimination.

The hon. member says that is discrimination. Let us then regard it as discrimination, but I shall come back to the hon. member. Unfortunately the hon. member who raised the question of the effect internationally is not here, but I want to pose the question whether it is not far more desirable from the point of view of our international relations that an individual hotelkeeper should say to a Black man: “No, I am sorry, I do not want you in my hotel,” than that this Government should say to every hotelkeeper: “No, you may not have that man in your hotel simply because he is a Black man.”

We are willing to take the responsibility.

The hon. member says that they are willing to take the responsibility, but I wonder whether his leader, the Prime Minister, will be prepared to take that responsibility? The hon. the Prime Minister is trying his best to have détente with African States, but the hon. member for Waterberg wants to insult every single Black person who comes from Black States to this country and he wants the Government to say that he may not go to hotels because his skin is black. The reason why they may not go to hotels is not because they are uncivilized, not because we do not like them, not because of any other reason, but just because their skins are black. That is what that hon. member is saying. This is why we believe that it is in the best interests of South Africa that these hotels should be thrown open and that the option should rest with the hotelkeeper himself.

Why do you not read the Bill?

The hon. member asks me why I do not read the Bill, but obviously he has not read it, because had he done so he would find that what it is seeking to do is to remove the right from 1 268 hotelkeepers to admit those Black people.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Vereeniging said yesterday evening just before the House adjourned. He said that this Bill was aimed at preserving his own identity as a White man and also the identities of the other racial groups in this country.

Because it prevents integration.

He has now said the very thing I wanted him to say. I now want to ask him what integration is. By virtue of having sat down to dinner with two Black ladies, one on either side, has the hon. the Prime Minister lost any of his identity?

No.

No, of course he has not. Has the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs lost his identity by virtue of having had some drinks in a pub with Black men?

You know you are talking nonsense.

You know you are talking nonsense.

No, that is not nonsense at all. The crux of the matter is that the hon. the Prime Minister did not lose his identity, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not lose his identity and neither did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and senior members of this party who consulted with the Black leaders of South Africa and who stayed for a weekend at a hotel and shared accommodation with the Black leaders. They have not lost their identity. The hon. member for Vereeniging agrees with me about that. However, he will not allow Whites and Blacks to mix. Why not? Our athletes and our football-players have mixed. Even an hon. ex-Deputy Minister of that party danced with a Black lady. He never lost his identity, neither did the Black lady. If anything, I believe that relations between Whites and non-Whites in this country were improved by those actions. They were not exacerbated. No points of friction were created. In fact, those actions went a long way towards lubricating those points so that there was no friction. I am sorry but I cannot accept the arguments of the hon. member at all.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Waterkloof is not here. When he spoke he said that Blacks, Coloureds and Indians must be encouraged to provide hotels and other accommodation establishments for their own people when they are needed. I had noticed earlier that the hon. the Minister of Tourism was taking quite an interest in this debate. I am disappointed, however, to see that he is not here today. I believe that he is vitally affected by the legislation that is being put through this House today. I believe that he and his department have a direct interest, because what are we actually doing? The hon. member for Waterkloof says that we must help and encourage the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians to provide their own hotels. How can they do so for the travelling public, for the tourist public? I am talking about the non-White travelling and tourist public. They are not permitted to erect hotels along the main highways of the Republic. They are limited to certain small areas. When one thinks of the tourist potential of the non-White population of this country, one realizes that we are throwing away an absolute goldmine. When I say that there are 1268 licensed hotels at the moment in the Republic which are permitted to accommodate and give meals to Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians—in fact, to all the race groups in this country—I appeal to them to open their hotels immediately. Very few of those are available to these people because of the administrative actions of this Minister. He has administratively issued instructions that non-Whites are not to be permitted. All the permits which have been granted since 1973, in terms of Proclamation No. R.228 of 1973, are all ultra vires. None of them have had the force and effect of law. I have heard people say that hotel-keepers were unaware of this. As far back as 1953 I was in a hotel in Durban with non-White people. At that time this Minister’s department tried to take action until I pointed out the provisions of the Group Areas Act. Thereupon no action was taken. From that day to this that hotel has been open to non-White people, and never once has action been taken.

You knew about this for a long time.

I knew about this for a long time, but the point I am getting at is that this happened 22 years ago. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Has he had one single complaint about non-White people in that hotel? The hon. the Minister knows the hotel to which I am referring. Has the hon. the Minister had one complaint? I do not believe that he has, so why did the hon. the Minister bring this legislation today? What is behind the legislation? Why have we been asked to consider this legislation today? I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has told us why he wants it, except for a growing awareness of the right of the hoteliers. Hoteliers are becoming more and more aware of their rights, and the fact that they may accommodate non-White people in their hotels is why this hon. Minister and the Government have decided to clamp down on them and to remove from them those rights and also to remove from the people of South Africa the rights which they enjoy to accommodation especially when they are travelling. The non-White people in this country today have something in excess of 200 000 motor-cars. More and more of them are travelling, more and more of them are demanding facilities along the road, more and more of them are demanding tourist facilities and tourist facilities can be developed for them. In fact, I want to go so far as to say that they must be developed for them. I do not believe that tourism is the prerogative of only the White people in South Africa. I believe that all our people can share in our wonderful natural beauties and all the assets which we have in this country. I believe that they must all share in it but, if this Bill is passed, they will be precluded from sharing, because they will have no accommodation whatsoever. No accommodation will be allowed to be provided for them. I cannot accept this Bill as it is. I believe that the amendment which was moved by my colleagues in the Select Committee, is the right attitude to adopt. I believe that the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban North is a valid one. I appeal to the hon. members of this House, in the interest of South Africa, to forget about parties, to forget about the ideological albatross that is hanging over the neck of the National Party. Let us vote for South Africa when we vote on this Bill; let us vote for the amendment by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Speaker, the words with which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South concluded his speech, indicate to me that the hon. member knows little about the contents of the legislation. The fact that the hon. member states “no accommodation will be allowed” indicates to me that he did not even take the trouble to investigate the actual purport and conditions embodied and laid down in this Bill. In fact, the hon. member said very little which bore any relation to this legislation or was worth the trouble to reply to, apart from a vague generalization of matters which really had very little to do with the provisions of the Bill. Let me point out that the hon. member said, inter alia, that what the legislation envisaged was that only the international five star hotels would enjoy this privilege. That is not so. In fact, just the opposite is true and it was the representatives of the Opposition themselves who proposed in the Committee that this right be granted to the four and five star hotels. That is why the legislation provides that the hon. the Minister will be empowered to give any applicant, however many stars he may have, the right to apply for the privilege of being classed as an international hotel. I do not know why the hon. member makes such a fuss about the right of reservation, because in the legislation it is expressly provided that section 113(4) is being repealed. If it is repealed, this empowers the proprietor of every hotel to decide whom he is going to allow in his hotel and whom he is not going to allow there. The hon. member for Durban North maintained that the hon. the Minister was waxing lyrical about the legislation. I want to maintain that the hon. the Minister has good reason to wax lyrical about this legislation. It proves two basic political facts. The first fact which this legislation proves to us outstandingly, is that the Government’s policy of multi-nationality is being implemented in a practical, realistic and objective way. Not only is it a good example of the implementation of the policy, it also proves that that policy is implemented with the consent and approval of all the interested bodies concerned with the legislation. The hotel industry as such accepts the provisions of the legislation unconditionally. I maintain that it is only the United Party that is totally out of step, because what they have advocated has never been what the hotel industry has advocated. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that I do not believe there is a single hotel in Durban that would support his proposal. Not only does the legislation prove the fact that the Government’s policy can be implemented soundly and with consent; it proves another fact, too, namely that the policy of the United Party shows that all they can offer the country—in whatever respect or direction, whether in the field of federation or multi-nationality —is the alternative of multi-racialism. That this is the case is embodied in the amendment they propose, because from that it is clear in point of fact, they have nothing but a policy of multi-racialism.

Then I want to ask the hon. member for Durban North to tell the die-hard United Party supporters on the platteland, too, that it is his party’s policy to throw open every hotel in South Africa. I ask the hon. member to do this, because both the United Party and the HNP in my constituency levelled the accusation at me that we were throwing open the Holiday Inns. Let the hon. member come to the platteland with their policy of multi-racialism, specifically to the constituency of Ermelo. He should come and hold the meeting there. There are still 3 000 United Party supporters in the Ermelo constituency and we shall have to beat them to death to get rid of them. [Interjections.] The hon. member must come and put his policy to those 3 000 United Party supporters, because I believe that if he did so we should in fact get rid of those 3 000 United Party supporters. [Interjections.] However, I know that if he were to hold a meeting there, he would say. “We stand for multi-racialism, but…”. He will always come along with that “but” which is linked to every aspect of United Party policy. He will therefore say, “We stand for multi-racialism, but by virtue of the repeal of section 113, we accord the owner of the hotel the right to decide what he will do.”

Do you now have confidence in the hoteliers of Ermelo; we have.

I shall come to that.

*This emphasizes once again the blatant irresponsibility of the United Party, because it wants to announce to the world, as has already been said, that it is in favour of total multi-racialism and in that regard it is trying to outbid the Progressive Party, but to the other man, the hotelier in Durban or Johannesburg who does not want to go along with this, it comes along with multi-racialism with a safety valve. The safety valve is to give the “true blue” who do not want to go to a mixed hotel and do not want to admit non-White guests there, the opportunity to refuse admittance to non-Whites in terms of the motion they have proposed. This can only lead to chaos. It must lead to that, because I can assure you that under that dispensation there would be many hotels who would tell the non-White expressly that he was not welcome there. This would give rise to the greatest possible confusion, because no non-White would then know where he could or could not go. He would be subjected to rebuffs at one hotel after the other, if we were to adopt that policy. Let me quote what the hon. member for Durban North said in his speech here in the House—

He is referring to earlier times—

He went on to say—

To me this shows incontrovertibly that this is the safety valve which the hon. member and his party would want to establish if their amendment were to be passed. In this way they would ensure that the non-White would not gain admittance to any hotel where this did not suit the owner. In other words, the hotelier must do what they are not prepared to do here in the House. This simply reflects their mentality once again.

Nor will it end there. On the other hand the advocates of multi-racialism will exploit these provisions. They will promote multi-racialism in this way. In other words, on both flanks an absolutely untenable position will be created. It will cause confusion and bring about the very situation we want to avoid by means of this legislation. In his speech the hon. member for Durban North spoke about “the civilized Black man and the civilized White man who should be able to have a meal together”. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what embarrassment it would cause if “the civilized White man and the civilized Black man”— he refers to the non-White attorney—were to go to the Edward Hotel in Durban, to Claridges, or wherever, and the proprietor were to tell the Black man: “I am sorry, I am not going to admit you because I am not compelled to do so”? Can you imagine what embarrassment and confusion this would cause? It is difficult to see how hon. members opposite can try to support this statement on a logical basis.

I want to point out that the hon. member for East London City, who is not present now, made the statement, “It fails to provide for foreign Black persons from Swaziland”, etc. In fact, that is not so. If you refer to page 29 of the report of the Select Committee, you will see that in reply to questions put to Mr. Freedberg, Mr. Swanepoel and others, they said (translation)—

These are the very people to whom the hon. member for East London City referred. They went on and said (translation)—

In other words, the man from Swaziland or Botswana will have access to the hotel if he has a passport. Mr. Brock, who also gave evidence, said (translation)—

Consequently, the argument which the hon. member for East London City tried to advance, falls away entirely. If the foreigner, from whichever state he may be, comes to this country and is in possession of a passport, he will be admitted. The only people we are excluding here are the contract labourers who come here. They are here temporarily and only come by way of an endorsement and special arrangements. In the normal course he will not be admitted, just as our own Bantu are not admitted.

That is entirely wrong.

That is not entirely wrong; it is entirely correct. This Bill makes specific provision for that. In his speech the hon. member for Durban North referred to earlier times. Those were the days when there was no legislation controlling the position. He said—

In other words, what his argument really amounts to, is that admittance was refused, that no provision was made and that that was the method which we should now follow. I want to put it very clearly that ghastly situations could result from that state of affairs. It is precisely owing to the earlier situation that friction was caused and, if it were to remain that way, that friction could be caused in the future. I want to mention one instance which occurred in my own constituency when a group of Black tourists from a neighbouring state arrived at a small hotel in the platteland about 50 or 60 miles from Ermelo.

That was in Albert’s day.

No, it was not in Albert’s day; it was in my day. The bus carrying those Black tourists from a neighbouring state stopped at that hotel. These people alighted from the bus, went into the lounge and told the proprietor, “We demand to be served.” In that district in my constituency there are many…

Conservative people!

… foresters. It was a nice rainy day and the foresters gathered in the bar of the hotel because they were unable to work in the plantations. The proprietor came to them to complain. He told them: “Listen, there is a group of Black tourists in here and they are demanding to be served.” It was 12 o’clock and by that time the foresters had already had quite a lot to drink. The result was that within five minutes the last tourist was back in the bus. [Interjections.] That is the kind of friction that could occur under the old dispensation. That is the kind of thing we are trying to eliminate by means of orderly legislation.

The other argument advanced here was that the Department of Foreign Affairs was in favour of multi-racial hotels. That is not true. If we refer to his evidence on page 53 of the report of the Select Committee, we see that the secretary stated (translation)—

On page 54 he states (translation)—

In other words, Sir, the legislation in its present form is, in fact, in terms of and in accordance with the tenor of the evidence submitted by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In conclusion, Sir, I just want to say that in point of fact, this Government makes no apology for the policy it implements in this country. We, as a responsible Government, recognized that in terms of this legislation we, too, are applying here a policy of multi-nationalism, of separateness, in accordance with the way of life and in accordance with the law of this land as we see it. The conditions set are quite clearly stipulated. Those conditions lend themselves to a degree of flexibility and adaptability in terms of the circumstances and the needs which, may arise. Furthermore, the provisions of this legislation are of such a nature that they make ample and effective provision for any needs that may arise. This legislation is wholeheartedly supported and welcomed by the responsible people who are concerned with this matter —not the United Party and not the Progressive Party, except the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to me, listening to the hon. member for Ermelo who has just sat down, that he does not realize, or probably does not want to realize, that South Africa today consists of a number of peoples in the Republic itself outside of the homelands. We have in the Republic today 8 million Blacks, approximately 4 million Coloureds, ¾ million Indians and approximately 4 million Whites. Sir, in the last 10, 15 or 20 years, particularly since the industrial revolution that took place during and after the post-war years, a complete change has taken place in the entire economic and cultural status of the various peoples living in South Africa. Instead of having purely labourers, mineworkers and unskilled people in the industrial field amongst the Coloureds, Indians and Black people, the position today is that considerable numbers of these people are well educated; they occupy important positions both in the service of the State and in other fields; they occupy educational posts and they are now engaged as operatives and in semi-skilled occupations in industry. In this regard the position in South Africa today is entirely different from what it was many years ago. This is evidenced by what has taken place even in terms of the Liquor Act. The rights of non-Whites with regard to accommodation and meals and refreshments were entrenched in the Liquor Act of 1928, and although these facilities were not used by them to any great extent in earlier days, they made more and more use of these facilities as their progress continued. This is evident from the amendment to the Liquor Act itself some nine or 10 years ago to enable liquor to be sold freely to all people in the country, irrespective of the race group to which they belong. Sir, this was done without any resultant chaos, without any resultant friction, and without any threat to the identity or status of any community in the country. Take, for instance, the period January 1974 to June 1974, a period of six months. There were 466 applications to the Minister to make use of hotels because of the Liquor Act. In the period of two months thereafter, from July to August 1974, there were 294, which is equivalent to approximately 900 over a six months, which is almost double the number applied for previously. According to the latest figures, for the period January 1975 to April 1975, there were 624 applications covering 7 617 people, which would approximate to 1 000 applications over a period of six months, if one uses comparative figures. These applications were all made under the Liquor Act, to enable persons who were not entitled to be supplied with liquor in the hotels, but who were nevertheless entitled to accommodation and other facilities, to make use of those liquor facilities. These applications were dealt with and, according to the evidence, most of them were granted, albeit that the permission that was granted and the method of granting it was in many cases ultra vires. They were in fact so because the hon. the Minister could not in terms of section 94 of the Act issue a permit of that nature, nor in fact had he the right to impose conditions in any way in 1970, on the issue of licences which denied refreshment, accommodation and meals. The very fact that a Minister of the State, the Minister of Justice, was prepared to go to those lengths to grant all these numerous applications, despite the fact that there may have been some misapprehension in his mind, is indicative of the recognition of the necessity to meet the new situation which has arisen in South Africa and the trend which is taking place whereby, particularly in the economic field, the whole of the community are beginning to get closer and closer together. Then we furthermore had a new picture presenting itself in our country where, as a result of a modernization of thinking, or perhaps the realization of hard facts in the morass of its ideological labyrinth, the Government became aware of the fact that we had to open our doors to visitors coming to this country, that we had to maintain contact between various States, that we had to have contacts in the economic and the business world, and that we had to have more contacts in the sporting world. All that brought a considerable number of visitors to our country, many of whom were beginning to meet the very problems occasioned by the Group Areas Act in particular and by the Liquor Act, which denied people the right to on-consumption of liquor in the hotels of our country. Therefore, well aware of that, it became obvious that something had to be done to amend the law, otherwise South Africa could not continue, and so we began generally to expand in that direction towards a normalization—and I would like the hon. member for Vereeniging to note this—of the current trends of human conduct in our country, as members of the peoples of the world. If we were to retain such contacts, it was necessary to bring therefore it became obvious that some-in this country, namely that the owner, the thing had to be done. When we in the United Party began to realize that the various communities needed facilities and that the various communities who lived amongst us had to enjoy those facilities, and when we realized that only the entrepreneurs in the country and in the business world could provide those facilities, we realized that it was necessary to come to the conclusion that private enterprise in this field should conduct its business just as any other private enterprise does business in this country, namely that the owner, the entrepreneur, should have the right of admission to his business place and the right to deal with those people whom he wishes to deal with. This happens in every form of enterprise in this country. There has been no prohibition, for instance, in regard to stores in our cities or the supermarkets or the butcheries or the milk suppliers. There has been no prohibition in regard to anything which had to do with the supply of clothing or of durables, or of whatever goods we can think of in the economic life of our country. Why then must we deny the right to the entrepreneur in the hotel field—a most important necessity in our country because of the visitors who come to our country, the tourists who come to our country and the travellers within our country—to decide for himself whom he will have in his hotel and whom he does not want to have? Surely, it is common sense that every man who runs a business will run it in a manner which is satisfactory to him and in a manner which brings profits to him so that it can be a viable type of business. No hotelier will throw open all the doors for everyone to come in because he has the right to admit whom he likes. The amount of nonsense we have heard from hon. members opposite on this point of view is unbelievable. We were asked what our supporters would say in Ermelo if we were to throw open the doors of all hotels. Nobody is going to throw open the doors of any hotel. This is a matter which belongs to private enterprise. Let me go further just to show the inhibited thinking of the hon. the Minister and when I say that I am not being personal; I refer to him in his capacity as the Minister who is responsible for this Bill. I say that he has an inhibiting attitude because the Department of Justice took many of these things into account when it drew up its memorandum. It went so far as to include in clause 1 of the draft Bill the right to issue a permit to an individual who had made application, which would have given that person the completely free use of any hotel in the country, in other words, he would have been treated just like visiting diplomats. The department included that provision as part and parcel of clause 1. The department did that because it realized that it was necessary to accommodate all sorts of people in this country, such as the school teachers of the country, the travellers, the inspectors, the holiday-makers, the ministers of religion, the executives from different homelands, the businessmen, the urban Bantu councillors and all the people who are in positions which have been created by the Government itself, not necessarily because the Government wanted it but because it was in accordance with the movement of the times. All these people have to be accommodated, but the hon. the Minister does not accept that.

Do you want me to accept it?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister what I want in a minute. The hon. the Minister rigidly excluded everyone from the use of an hotel in the country apart from a specific race group in its own area and apart from the specific hotels he mentioned.

Do you want me to issue permits to these persons?

Just let me finish my argument. He deliberately excluded every hotel apart from these ten specific hotels in respect of which he said that he would have to deal with this very circumspectly and very strictly. I would have liked to give hon. members his exact words, but he used words to that effect. He said that he would have to be very circumspect in the way in which he handled such cases. The hon. the Minister also followed the suggestion that was made in the report, namely that possibly ten hotels…

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member want me to issue a permit to enable individual Black people to go into an hotel?

No…

Do not answer for him. He must answer for himself.

I do not desire that system. The system I am asking for is what was asked for in the amendment to the Bill which was before the Select Committee. It would have given the hotelier and the entrepreneur the right to decide for himself. I am merely giving an indication to this House of the narrow attitude and the narrow outlook of the hon. the Minister, so much so that even when the department suggests something from its experience, the Minister refuses to accept it. The hon. the Minister excludes this and limits himself to only 10 specific hotels. He has a peculiar inordinate fear that something will break down in the whole social and economic structure of South Africa which will lead to the doom of the country. These are the problems which bother us. For that reason…

You are talking absolute nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. There is no reason for the hon. the Minister to get upset. His Bill, read in conjunction with what the department recommends, is sufficient evidence for the Minister to take whatever responsibility he likes as to what type of freedom he should grant in regard to these matters. It is quite clear that he has completely ignored a total community. We have to look at the evidence. Members on the other side who stand up and say that the evidence supports this Bill have, if I may say so, have made confusion worse confounded. The situation was confused at the start, and I want to take the liberty of saying that there was even confusion in the evidence because the first phase of the evidence from the department basically concerned the question of permits. In the course of discussion that information was passed on to the hoteliers. The general impression amongst the hoteliers, certainly the impression created by the department, was that there would be international types of hotels to which everyone could have access; in other words, there would be no discrimination at all. There would also be other hotels for which permission would be granted to meet the demands of the day.

This is the point. That has now been completely forgotten, as I say. One only has to look at the memoranda, which I have no doubt the Minister has studied very carefully. There is the question of the Indian community. Indians cannot even invite people they do business with to places to have a meal with them. They cannot reciprocate when invitations are extended to them. They complain very bitterly about this. They regard themselves as members of a normal, civilized community, integrated into the business life of this country. They are perfectly happy to retain their identity if they want to. Nobody wants to take away that identity. They are very proud to retain their identity. However, they want to have dignity as individuals and as human beings. They are precluded from maintaining that dignity simply because there is an inhibited outlook as far as the whole approach to normal contact and mixing of human beings is concerned. There is also the Chinese community which lives in a twilight world. They are not White and therefore they have certain privileges taken away for some reason or other. They nevertheless enjoy virtually all privileges. They have made representations and so has the CRC. From the evidence one can clearly see an admission that even some of the hotels established in the Coloured areas have virtually reduced themselves to on-consumption premises. There is a very simple reason why we should have a much broader approach than that which the hon. the Minister has presented to the House. The people who are living in group areas are virtually cut off from the general amenities which most people in the world enjoy. They are cut off from theatres, cinemas, sports venues, etc. As part and parcel of the inhabitants of this country, they are obliged to move amongst all peoples. They cannot carry out activities, such as hiking on mountain trails, for instance, within the confines of a group area, so it is perfectly natural that they will seek the facilities which should be available to every person in the normal course of his life. The hon. the Minister can talk about perhaps excluding people from one’s home and he can be concerned about the type of person who lives next door to one, but he cannot continually go on denyning people the normal facilities that most people require in the course of their existence. If one looks at the various representations that have been made, one finds that there are pleas, for instance, by the Law Society of Natal, to which the hon. member for Durban North has referred. The Law Society of Natal found itself in a difficulty because it has Indian members, it has Black members; they have gatherings, get-togethers and they wish to entertain themselves. Unless they can go to one of the hotels to which the hon. the Minister is going to grant special licenses, they cannot be entertained. They are obliged to go to a specific hotel, and the number of such hotels is limited.

Why do you not invite them to the Rand Club?

If I were a member I would do so with pleasure, but I am not. [Interjections.] It is in their discretion to admit me or not.

Take them to the Durban Club.

I cannot even become a member of the Here Sewentien, which I am dying to do. [Interjections.] We have to bear in mind the evidence that was put before us, and the attitude of the Minister. The point I would like to make to the hon. the Minister is that the Bill as it stands, so I understand, is going to be amended and I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain this very fully. The Bill, as it stands, gives the hon. the Minister the right only to deal with an application if recommended by the National Liquor Board. I understand that the hon. the Minister intends to change that in order to allow himself a discretion and I assume that the idea is that he will have the discretion to ask that additional hotels be provided. Even that is a bit inverted and we have to know what he wants.

We suggested it.

Yes, we asked that every hotel should have the right to apply. Our original suggestion was that every hotel should have the right to apply, and we believe that the correct approach in this matter is for every entrepreneur to have the right to decide.

I want to say one final word about rights that have been taken away. In the atmosphere which prevailed in this country over the last few years, it was accepted amongst all sections of the community that certain rights, albeit that these rights were granted ultra vires by the hon. the Minister, did exist. It gave them the opportunity to go into one or two hotels or hotels where they were authorized to go and enjoy certain social facilities. That has all been destroyed by the effects of this Bill. In that respect, it is important to note that technically or otherwise, in so far as the thinking of the public is concerned, rights have been taken away and people have been denied something which existed. They are now being denied, with this Bill, a practice which grew up, which became almost an accepted practice and a usage in our affairs. I think that is a very important aspect to remember, because that becomes, with time, a right. That is how most of our rights have grown up. This Bill removes it entirely. Speaking for my party and myself, I say to the hon. the Minister with the utmost sincerity: Have faith in the entrepreneur and the hotel industry, on whom after all rests a great deal of responsibility with regard to our public relations. The hon. the Minister should have sufficient faith in them to know that they will seek this right only where they feel that it is advantageous to their community, to themselves and I am sure to the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the end of a debate which has lasted a few days. Actually, it is remarkable that members of a Select Committee should be able to state such divergent standpoints here on the basis of precisely the same evidence. The reason is very clear. The National Party has a clear political philosophy on which is based its entire standpoint concerning legislation and any other aspect of the political structure in South Africa. We are therefore in a position to maintain a definite pattern throughout. In striking contrast to this we have the United Party, which has never really had a political philosophy capable of adjusting to circumstances as we know them in South. Africa.

The Opposition advances the idea that all Hotels in South Africa should be thrown open and that, as was emphasized by the hon. member for Jeppe, the owners should have the right to decide whom they will admit. I cannot understand how one can bluff oneself in that way. How can one believe that economic considerations should be one’s guiding consideration when one has to decide on as important a matter as race relations and contact between races? I cannot understand how, when so important a matter is at issue, one can want to use as a guide-line economic considerations, which, in the nature of the matter, are surely the primary consideration for a hotelier. I cannot understand the Opposition not being prepared to accept that clear guide-lines must be laid down in this regard.

If we want to have absolute chaos, not only in the hotel industry, but in regard to race relations as well, then this matter should be left uncontrolled. The result will be that the Whites in South Africa will in fact be discriminated against eventually. The fact is that in time, the Whites will avoid these hotels. At the moment it is a fact that the few non-Whites who do go to the various hotels, do so against the background of the Western cultural set-up because they are in the minority in such hotels, and, owing to their education, most of them are sophisticated, when measured against our customs and norms. However, what would happen as soon as the hotels were declared open on a large scale? Non-Whites would come to the hotels in ever-increasing numbers, and as a result the Black people in South Africa would impose their cultural stamp on the milieu of our hotels. One would then find that the White person will not feel at home there. When we look at the set-up in this regard, therefore, it is essential that we should think more deeply and take account of the total overthrow of deeply-rooted customs in South Africa, something we could not tolerate.

The hon. member said that the Bill did not provide for special circumstances, and then mentioned a number of sets of special circumstances. Actually I do not believe that the hon. member need be concerned about them. Sufficient provision has been made in the legislation to allow the Liquor Board and the Minister to provide for special circumstances. In special circumstances they can give the necessary permission so that needs may be met. The Bill was, of course, born out of the need which arose in South Africa for facilities to be established. That is why it is unnecessary for us to anticipate well in advance every need that might arise. It has also been clearly stated that the Liquor Board will look into the demand from time to time and will make the necessary adjustments.

As far as foreign visitors are concerned, I just want want to say that the custom which will probably be introduced of submitting passports to certain hotels for the purposes of checking in, is a custom which is in fact followed throughout the world. It ought not, therefore, to give rise to any unpleasantness in South Africa.

In my opinion that aspect, too, is another important contribution to the set-up here in South Africa as is the case in other countries too. To be specific, it could contribute towards the security aspect as far as the regulation of our affairs in South Africa is concerned, We are living at a time when terrorism and espionage are the order of the day, and I believe that this step is a step in the right direction. In my opinion this legislation will also promote tourism to a considerable degree in the future. By eliminating any problems relating to groups of tourists which include non-Whites, this can serve as an encouragement for tourism. This is in fact a matter which we in South Africa cannot take lightly. The fact of the matter is that to us, tourism is not merely and economic consideration. It does in fact contribute towards the knowledge of South Africa which people abroad may possess. Particularly in view of the fact that there is a tremendous amount of ignorance about South Africa abroad, this encouragement will be to our benefit.

This new dispensation will be watched with eagle eyes by the public and even under this legislation, problems may occur. I believe, too, that there are certain elements in the hotel industry, and in the Opposition as well, that will try to abuse this situation. We shall therefore have to keep a very close watch on this. We shall have to make certain adjustments and we shall also require the co-operation of the public to make these adjustments. However, I believe that this is a realistic approach, and that it represents a step in the right direction which could contribute towards harmonizing both our foreign and our domestic relations. I believe, too, that there will be a better understanding of our problems when foreign visitors can make contact with our people in this way, without any of the incidents we have had at hotels in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of an interesting and an important debate. I am pleased that this Bill has come at this stage. I am pleased that the Select Committee was appointed to investigate this matter and to report to us here in the House of Assembly. It has afforded both sides of this House, that served on that committee, as well as the small, so-called Liberal Party, an opportunity to build up a considered opinion on this aspect, which is very important in our country. This debate is very interesting because it is an interpretation of what the standpoint of the various parties in general is to colour relationships in South Africa. We find the considered standpoint of the United Party in the proposal of the Minority report. The minority report recommends that the licensee may, in his discretion, allow any person to use any facilities in an hotel. This standpoint is, in my humble opinion, a standpoint of total, mixed integration. This is the standpoint of the United Party, and I believe, too, the standpoint of the Progressive Party and of the Reform Party. I just want to say in passing that I wanted to put a question to the hon. member for Johannesburg North …

The licensee may do it in his discretion.

I am coming to the question of discretion. This is a very important point, because it demonstrates how politically hypocritical that party is.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “politically hypocritical”.

May I not say that they are politically hypocritical?

No.

I withdraw them, and I then say that it indicated the political lack of credibility of that party. I wanted to put a question to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I wanted to ask him whether he supports this proposal of the minority group, yes or no. Does he support it?

†Does the hon. member accept the Bill as presented by the United Party?

Have you not read the Select Committee’s report?

I accept it on the basis that in any open hotel the criterion cannot be colour for the refusal of facilities.

I want to know whether the hon. member accepts the Bill as propoposed by the minority group.

He voted for it.

Yes, subject to an amendment which I shall propose during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member did not say that in the committee. He accepted it in toto in the committee. He voted for it in the committee. Is he now qualifying his support for that Bill?

Yes.

What are the hon. member’s qualifications? What does he not accept in that Bill?

*What does the hon. member not accept in that Bill of the minority group?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to make a speech now.

Sir, I shall come back to this. I just want to point out the attitude of that little party. On the Select Committee they voted for the Bill drawn up by the minority group. Now, after the hon. member has spoken to his chief, he realizes that they may not agree with the United Party on anything. Now they are beginning another egg dance. That is what is now happening here. [Interjections.]

Order! Did anyone use the word “hypocritical” (skynheilig) again?

No, he said “holy” (heilig). [Interjections.]

Sir, I repeat that this is the standpoint of both those Opposition parties, and it is a standpoint of total, mixed integration. At least they are becoming honest now. Hon. members on the opposite side, and particularly the hon. member for East London City, accused us of discrimination. In other words, there should be open hotels, without any discrimination. Am I correct?

In the discretion…

No, wait a minute. We shall come to the question of discretion. Let us first dispose of the question of discrimination. The point I want to make is that those hon. members want it to take place at discretion. This is in fact the discretion to which the hon. member refers. I shall come to the question of discretion. The hon. member for Durban North need not become excited. I shall come to his points; we are going to spend a long time discussing this matter. Their standpoint, furthermore, is that any person should be admitted to hotels, and that any facilities should be available to them. The hon. member for East London City says there should be no discrimination, for he accused us of discrimination. Am I correct? The hon. member agrees with that. In other words, there should be no discrimination vertically, i.e. in respect of an ethnic or cultural background, or on the basis of colour or whatever other basis it may be, nor should there be any discrimination horizontally, i.e. in respect of status, profession, financial considerations, etc.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned we were discussing the standpoints of the signatories of the minority report, and we had been able to establish by way of questions that the hon. members on the opposite side feel that there should be no discrimination whatsoever, that there should be no separation on the vertical line, i.e. colour, ethnic background, etc., nor on the horizontal line, i.e. standard of living, literacy, etc. The life-line to which the hon. member for Durban North clung—he also tried to imply every time by way of interjection that this was his life-belt—was the fact that the licensee should be given the right to exercise a discretion. In terms of his draft Bill the licensee is given the exclusive right to decide who may enter his hotel, and once a person has been admitted, he must be able to make use of all the facilities in the hotel, as the hon. member in fact stated.

No.

Should the licensee limit the use of facilities within the hotel?

The licensee has the discretion to limit these.

Let us consider the situation in Natal for a while. I am confining myself to the situation in Natal, because most of the hon. members on the opposite side come from Natal. I want to contend that if the licensee is a liberalist, which in my humble opinion the hon. member for Durban North in fact is, he will allow as many Black people as possible into his hotel. The hon. member for Jeppe stated very clearly that it would be financially advantageous to the hotelier if he were to do this. If he is a total liberalist and integrationist, one could imagine that he would quite simply throw open his hotel, so that any person who could pay, would be admitted. If the hotel licensee is a verkrampte person, such as the hon. member for Sea Point, who cannot find a restaurant at which Black people may have a meal, and who does not want to throw the swimming baths open to Black people either, or if he is a verkrampte person such as the hon. member for Pine-lands, who does not want to allow Black people to walk through his constituency, one will have the situation that…

That is untrue, and you know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “and you know it”.

I withdraw them, Sir.

I almost wanted to be mischievous and repeat this, but then I know that you would perhaps look in my direction as well, Sir, and I should like to avoid that. As I have said, if the licensee is verkramp, as some of those hon. members are, one would have the situation that the hotel owner would summarily drive all Black people away from his door, and would say to them: “Be off with you! You are not coming into my hotel.” Then discrimination is therefore implicit in the proposal of the hon. member.

But is that not exactly the position now?

I shall come to my policy. I am not going to run way from my policy. I am coming to the policy of the National Party. The controversy of the century in our country is how far we should go in the process of coexistence in South Africa. The hon. members on the opposite side have implied here that, as far as they are concerned, there should be total integration.

No.

That is true; do not let the liberalists come forward with qualifications now, and impose conditions. They should not run away from their policy. What is an hotelier going to do if he is having a hard time of it financially? He will lower his standards to such an extent that he is able to keep his hotel solvent.

What then of his licence?

He will allow the people to use any facilities anywhere.

It happened in Rhodesia.

Yes, wait a minute; I am still coming to Rhodesia. Mr. Speaker, when that hon. member ventures outside the police sphere, he is skating on thin ice. I am still coming to Rhodesia. We shall not run away from anything. We shall not run away from anything in this debate. Let us first find out how far these hon. gentlemen wish to go. They say they allow all amenities; it is stated in their Bill. This means bar facilities, lounge facilities, sleeping facilities, dining room facilities, dances and functions. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that when we come to Natal, we find that there are thousands of Indian people who will make use of those facilities. I want to say this at once now, and will subsequently try to prove it from my side of this House. I have nothing against Indian people as people. [Interjections.] Wait a minute; give me a chance. I have nothing against Black people as people. [Interjections.] We are still dealing with their side of the story. My statement to the hon. member for Durban North is this: I said that in Natal there are thousands of Indians who are as well dressed as he is, who are as rich as he is.

I am not rich.

Then just as poor! These people are going to make use of those facilities along the Durban beach front, if we accept his proposal, and we are going to find a situation in Durban where there will be thousands of Indian people in the bars at night and in the hotels and restaurants by day along that millionaire’s mile. I am now telling the hon. member that this is the policy which he advocates. He must not run away from his own people. That is what he told us. If the hotelier says they may enter, then they enter. Why should the hotelier say “no”? We are saddled with this situation in regard to the United Party. Theoretically they are saying “Throw open”, but at the same time they are praying that the hotelier will kick those people out, for then it is not their responsibility that they have been kicked out. What else does the hon. member mean by that? The hon. member keeps on telling me: “The hotelier will decide”. The hon. member does not know the statistics. I want to tell him that almost half of the hoteliers in South Africa are people from abroad, foreign people who do not fully grasp the South African situation yet. What is that hotelier going to do? That kind of hotelier is simply going to throw open his hotel to all people. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Jeppe is becoming excited now. He is the person who said that it would be to the financial advantage of business concerns in South Africa. These people would be able to make money. [Interjections.] Where does the hon. member for Durban North want to draw a line? If he wants to draw lines, let us hear.

The same kind of “line” as we have in S.A. Airways.

What kind of line?

In regard to the S.A. Airways’ Boeings.

On the S.A. Airways’ Boeings there is a small area, but the people pay just as much. We are signatories to an international agreement. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. Let us first understand the full implications of that policy.

I want to put a few questions to hon. members opposite. I see that most of them have already left, conveniently, but the hon. member for Maitland is still stitting there. I want to ask him whether he supports that minority report. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. Let him reply. I was not talking to the hon. member for Green Point. He will support anything. Only he must not ask the Progressives, for they are still angry with him for having supported the report of the Le Grange Commission. [Interjections.] What does the hon. member for Maitland say? Does he support the proposal that the hotels should be thrown open, at the discretion of the hoteliers?

Yes, because it is better than your plan.

Sir, the hon. member says that he supports it as an emergency measure because there is no better plan, and because it is better than my plan. But he accepts that hotels in Maitland should be thrown open to all races, and with amenities for all races.

No, you are distorting now.

Where am I distorting?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must withdraw the word “distorting”.

I withdraw the word “distorting”. Sir, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why did he deliberately omit the words “at the discretion of the hoteliers” when he repeated the answer of the hon. member for Maitland?

Sir, I did not deliberately omit those words. I told the hon. member throughout what his lifebelt supposedly was—the hotelier who has now to decide.

Why did you omit those words?

Does the hon. member for Maitland want the hotelier to keep all persons who are not White out of his hotel, or what should he do?

You are misrepresenting …

No, it is no misrepresentation. That hon. member never reflected on the consequences of his attitude. According to the policy of that party, Sir, any person, if there is nothing wrong with him, may enter an hotel and make use of all the facilities there, and when that happens, I say that with the racial situation in South Africa, there will, within two weeks— not within a year or six months or three months—be more non-Whites than Whites in the hotel bars in Natal.

That is nonsense.

Does the hon. the Minister appreciate the embarrassment that he is causing the Prime Minister with this type of speech?

Mr. Speaker, my Prime Minister will tell me when I am an embarrassment to him, and the hon. member should not try to shift his embarrassment on to my Prime Minister. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. member: His motion goes even further than this, much further. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must be more reasonable with their interjections now.

Sir, do you know what the further implications of his motion are? His Bill means that children under the age of 18 may enter hotel bars, if the hotel owners allow them to.

Nonsense!

The hon. member is saying “Nonsense!”, but he did not read his own Bill.

Always subject to the laws.

What does the hon. member mean by “Subject to the laws”? This is the Bill which he submitted to Parliament, and it provides that hotels should be open to all.

As an amending Bill—not to scrap all the provisions.

The hon. member must not talk nonsense. It is a Bill dealing with hotels. Sir, what is the position of the National Party? This Bill is a classical example of the grand ideals of separate development. It is not based on discrimination.

Differentiation?

No, the hon. member should not put words in my mouth. He should give me a chance to make my speech, and not be so afraid that I am going to get him into a corner again on some point. Sir, this Bill is based on mutual respect for one another’s various cultural backgrounds, with respect for the historical growth in South Africa and the traditional position of our country. The hon. member for Durban North himself mentioned that, and subsequently ran away from it.

Is that evidence of no discrimination?

Sir, this policy which we have set out here, takes into consideration that social integration, with the numerical difference between Whites and Blacks in South Africa, must inevitably lead to conflict and racial strife. We took this into consideration in drawing up this Bill, even before we began to draft it. Sir, for that reason this party states that we are seeking peaceful co-existence, in separation, with sharing of facilities where necessary— not when the hotelier tells me that it is necessary, but when I tell him that it is necessary. This Parliament is governing the country, not the hoteliers of South Africa. I say that our policy is one of peaceful co-existence and of separation, and we share facilities where necessary, but in an orderly manner in order to obviate friction. This is not discriminatory: it is regulatory. [Interjections.] We are regulating our lives in South Africa in such a manner that we are creating possibilities for other people within the Republic of South Africa—the White Republic of South Africa—in such a manner that they can satisfy their essential needs in peace, without having to resort to fisticuffs and without their having to endure the insult of an hotel licensee telling them: “You are an Indian”, or “You are a Zulu, keep out of my hotel”. I want to make it very clear that we are proceeding in this country, through my department, in conjunction with the Department of Community Development, to establish as many hotels as possible as rapidly as possible, for Black people, for Brown people and for Indian people. We are doing this deliberately because we admit that the Black people are entitled to hotel facilities, that the Brown people also wish to utilize hotel facilities, and that the Indian people are in the same boat. That is why we are establishing these facilities as rapidly as possible. I do not want to say that there are enough of them.

In the rural areas as well?

I have never said that there are enough of them. I say that we are creating as many facilities as possible, as quickly as possible.

Along the national roads as well?

I am coming to that. Give me a chance to make my own speech. I have made notes of the rubbish that hon. member spoke, and I shall reply to each one of his points. Where necessary, I say, we are creating amenities and facilities in White hotels to meet the needs and amenities which these persons of other colours require. We all agree that the present position under the Act has, to a certain extent, created a chaotic situation, and consequently we have to do something fundamental about it. The first thing we had to do in order to make these regulated exceptions, was to say—this was necessary— that White hotels are White. That is the reason. It is not discrimination towards anyone, but I cannot make an exception without there first being a basic prohibition. Therefore we stated in the relevant portion of the first clause that all hotels in the White area are White hotels. I know that hon. members opposite will immediately shout at me: “What about section 113?”, and that this is depriving people of their rights. Sir, section 113 is a section which goes back a very long way to the days of the Liquor Act of 1928. I think it was placed on the Statute Book in 1929. What was the purpose of section 113? The actual purpose of section 113 was to say to an hotel owner: “You may not rely on your liquor only; you must also provide other accommodation and meal facilities to people who request such facilities.” And at that stage—I need not say this because it is history—there were almost no non-Whites who ever entered an hotel.

While the hon. the Minister is on that point, will he indicate to us why the Government entrenched the same provision in the Group Areas Act in 1950?

I shall come to that point. In the Liquor Act there is section 94, which prohibits the provision of liquor to non-Whites. We know that the hotels are controlled by the Liquor Act. The hotels are not certified and licensed by the Department of Tourism, but under the Liquor Act, and if section 94 states that non-Whites may not consume liquor, then the idea was also that they should not be admitted to the hotel. It was for that reason that section 78 provided that they were entitled to allow the various categories of persons—in reality this meant the Coloureds—to consume liquor at separate places. This indicates very clearly the pattern of the traditional school of thought of the South African, in spite of what the Group Areas Act says. The Group Areas Act does not prohibit it, and does not allow it either; in truth, the Group Areas Act says nothing. As far as these matters are concerned, we may regard it as being a neutral Act. The reason for this provision in that instance is that it should not contradict the Liquor Act. The Liquor Act is the decisive Act. Personally I am of the opinion that if such a case were to be referred to a court, the court would say that section 113 of the Act has nothing whatsoever to do with non-Whites. This was always general knowledge in practice. It is true that we have had a few skirmishes, a juristic argument or two, on section 113, but there is no doubt in this House that section 113 of the Act has nothing to do with the admission of non-Whites to hotels. Hoteliers understood it in this way. They have always asked our permission, regardless of the provisions of section 113, because they knew that this section does not refer to non-Whites. This is the reason why we are clarifying the position in this Bill. In terms of this legislation we will be able to make exceptions where necessary. The new section 81(3), clause 3, provides that in the major cities, according to need, there will be international hotels to which everyone can go on certain conditions. I keep on hearing now that the chairman of the liquor board, who is an official of my department, has allegedly pegged the number of hotels at ten. This is nonsensical, for he never said that. I shall read what he said.

What did he say?

I shall quote it to the hon. member, so that he may know. Of course, he could have read this himself, but since he did not do so, I shall quote it to him.

That is not necessary.

I am going to quote it to hon. members, for they kicked up a big fuss about this.

We know about it.

The hon. member may perhaps know about it, but the hon. member ignores it. In question 55 Mr. George Botha put the following question to Mr. Le Roux (translation)—

Mr. Le Roux’s reply was—

Please note, he uses the words “from my experience”—

The hon. members must note that he states that this is relative because it depends upon the circumstances. He says that, from his experience, it would be as follows—

Mr. Botha’s next question was—

Mr. Le Roux’s reply was—

The hon. gentlemen spoke of distortion, but if there has ever been a real distortion of an official’s words, it was in this case. The hon. members kept on saying that there would be only ten, while he clearly stated that the number was relative, and also that he was speaking on the basis of his own experience. He said as far as the present applications were concerned the numbers would be as he had stated them. Now, what is wrong with that.

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot accuse the Opposition of distortion.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. Hon. members will simply have to form their own opinions of what it was they did.

How many hotels are there in Durban and in Cape Town that are at present open to non-Whites?

We are dealing with the Bill now. I shall tell hon. members what is going to happen here. I am saying that there will be a limited number of international hotels in the cities, and this number will depend on the need. The conditions in terms of which those hotels will act, will be conditions which will have been drawn up after proper consideration of the need at that juncture, of the circumstances, and of the specific place.

And in the rural areas?

In the rural areas, precisely the same will apply, particularly on the travel routes. My department is giving consideration to the travel routes and making a survey of how far most people travel. Certain hoteliers along those travel routes will then be invited to apply for international status. The international hotels in the rural areas will be subject to conditions. What will determine these conditions? The conditions will be determined by the position of the community concerned. There will be a proper investigation by the National Liquor Board; witnesses will be called …

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

The peoples’ circumstances, cultural backgrounds and a host of other factors will be taken into consideration when we determine the conditions. I was criticized here in that hon. members opposite implied that I wanted to lay down strict conditions. If a community wants the conditions to be strict, why should I make them less strict? If I grant international status to an hotel in a country town, and the people in that area tell me that racial friction will arise if I throw open their bar to all persons…

What community?

What community? The community in which the application is made.

What part of that community?

The Nationalists! Of course!

That is precisely the point.

Does that hon. member think that we can rely on the United Party? Does that hon. member think for a single moment that we can go on the mixed-up opinions of that side of the House? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. the Minister prepared to reply to further questions?

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is now saying that the discretion lies with the community and no longer with the hotelier?

It astonishes me that the hon. member can ask such a question. Once a person becomes a Progressive… [Interjections.]

Order!

Once a person becomes a Progressive he loses his equilibrium entirely. I have just told the entire House—the hon. member included—that it will depend on an application which has been properly investigated by the National Liquor Board. All the needs, and the opinions of all the people will be taken into consideration. The opinions of the Black people will be taken into consideration, and the opinion of the Progressives will also be taken into consideration, for what that is worth. Afterwards, when all those opinions have been taken into consideration, a recommendation will be made to me. In a part of the Cape where there are many Coloureds the recommendation could perhaps indicate that the hotels should not be thrown open to Blacks because the Coloureds would be at loggerheads with them. In fact, we have already received such evidence. We can then draw up conditions to regulate the matter in this way. [Interjections.] The whole idea is to prevent friction.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to all the questions; I have been hearing all of them here, all day long. But ask your question if you like.

My question to the hon. the Minister is whether he realizes there are 15 hotels in this country in which Asians, Blacks and Coloureds have full rights at the moment?

I am not going to deprive people of anything. Those people will be able to make application after this Bill has become law. They will be able to say…

[Inaudible.]

Give me a chance to reply now; if you do not, I shall not reply. Is that clear now? Any person who now has an established right, will present their applications immediately after this Bill has become law—and I can assure hon. members that it is going to become law. They will be able to tell us what established rights and customs they have in their hotels. They will be able to explain the pattern of activities in their hotels. We shall then issue the necessary certificates, and the hotel may then become an open hotel, for example a hotel for Coloureds, with rights for Black people, or an hotel for Black people with rights for Coloureds and Indians. This Bill is so flexible, so much in line with the pattern of movement in South Africa at present that it is, as we have said, a classical example of legislation, an example of the National Party’s attempt in these days to take the rights of all people into consideration, to remove their grievances and eliminate friction. The number of hotels will depend on the necessity for such hotels. If more are required, there will be more, and if fewer are required, there will be fewer. I cannot tell the hon. members now what the conditions will be.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to reply to questions?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to reply to any further questions.

I want you to deal with the question of international status…

I shall come to that.

Order! The hon. the Minister said that he was not prepared to reply to any further questions.

The entire object of laying down conditions will be to eliminate racial friction, so that we do not tread on one another’s toes, and become angry with one another. We do not want to unleash the basic instincts, with which the Americans, the British and everyone in the world are struggling today, for in South Africa we do not want to hurt one another.

I was asked what would happen in the case of a South African non-White whose motor car broke down and who came to a White hotel that did not have international status. The amendment for which the hon. member for Waterkloof has given notice, is applicable to such a case. This will allow me to ask the Attorney-General not to prosecute, but in fact to give consent; depending upon the circumstances, for the non-White to be accommodated in the hotel. Once again the idea is not to discriminate against the non-Whites, but to meet their normal needs without their having to be insulted in that it is possible for the hotel owner to say to him: “Be off with you!” We shall telephone the hotel owner from our office in Pretoria and tell him: “We know that you have not applied to international status for your hotel, but a non-White has telephoned us and has said that he would like to sleep in your hotel. Do you have room for him?” We shall therefore arrange these matters without any racial friction occurring. I am therefore going to accept the motion of the hon. member for Waterkloof, for I think it is an improvement on the existing provision, which does not afford me a discretion if the National Liquor Board should find against me.

I have been told that the system of international hotels will be discriminatory against White hotels. Surely that is not true. How can we, at this stage, say what the effect of such a system is going to be in the financial sphere? It could lead to the Black people either being attracted to the hotel or not being prepared to go to the hotel. It is not possible for us to say, at this early juncture, what the effect will be, and consequently it is absurd to say at this stage that the legislation discriminates in favour of hotels with international status.

What is our standpoint towards the Black foreigner? We have already concluded and honoured certain contracts without the need for legislation. European countries have pointed out to us that they have Black people among their number who travel all over the world because they have a great deal of money. They then wanted to know whether we would discriminate against such Black people. The attitude of the Government is very simple. We say that the position in Southern Africa is unique. In Southern Africa there are four million Whites who have built up the country economically in conjunction with the Blacks. We are surrounded by 200 million Black people of Africa, and in our own country there are approximately 18 million Black people. Since Whites and non-Whites are not prepared to lose their own identities, and we want to guarantee each individual his own identity, we say our position is unique. For that reason we are in South Africa regulating our affairs in such a manner that there is separation without discrimination. However we should not like to impose the pattern which is unique to South Africa upon the American pattern of life. If the Americans tell me that its Black people are Americans, I shall say that that is fine, and that I accept it. If such a person arrived in South Africa he will, according to the provisions of this Act, have to display his passport, whether he is a Frenchman or an American. We shall ask no further questions. We shall say to him: “You are a Frenchman,”, or: “You are an American. There are our hotels and our restaurants. Do what you would have done if you had been a traveller in another country.” Now hon. members come to me, however, and say that this is insulting to our own Black people. That is rubbish. This would be true only if one accepts the impossible, damning and life-destroying philosophy of the United Party, namely the policy of integration. But to the Black people who understand our philosophy it is not strange; they understand the situation. After all, there is already a Black hotel in Soweto, and in the homelands as well. In Pretoria and Durban there are Indian hotels. In terms of this legislation Black people will be able to make use of the hotel facilities of the Whites under certain conditions, and they will say that they are grateful for that, and that it does not make any difference if an American visitor has more facilities. Surely that cannot be insulting to our own people. That, briefly, is the standpoint of the National Party in regard to this legislation.

A question was put in regard to VIP’s from the homelands. The answer is in the report of the committee. The Secretary said that homeland leaders and VIP’s would simply apply to the Department of Foreign Affairs for that kind of permit or document which would bring him within the framework of our law, so that he may have freedom of movement. This is easy; this can be done. As far as the remainder of the Black people here are concerned, the labourers in the country, surely we are not able to throw open our hotels. That is impossible. It has constantly been hurled at me that Fedhasa feels this way and that Fedhasa feels that way. I want to dispose of this matter once and for all. In my hand I have a note from Fedhasa, a note from the chairman of the National Liquor Board, who is now sitting in the gallery, in which he states—

That is Fedhasa’s standpoint. That is the standpoint of the Federation of Hotels. [Interjections.] There is one thing which endears a United Party man to me—one is never able to convince him. That is why we enjoy electioneering so much. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that the English speaking people of Durban are going to take him to task for his minority report. He will have to explain to his constituency why he advocated that their hotels should be thrown open to Indians. The hon. member is a very prominent member of his party and therefore I want to state this very specifically to him. His party is fighting the Progressive Party, and is engaged in a struggle to the death with that party. Does the hon. member know whether the Progressives are leading with them that “to out-Prog the Progs” competition? It will lead that hon. member and his party into the political wilderness. I want to challenge the hon. member to prove to me that this legislation will have a different consequence than the one I believe it will have. I believe that 75% of Natal’s English-speaking people support the regulatory legislation which I have before Parliament today, as Fedhasa supports it.

Do you want to bet?

Yes I will take a bet on this point. Even the people in that hon. member’s part of the world, in Little England, agree with us as far as this legislation is concerned. This is the traditional pattern in South Africa. If there are any further points which are troubling the hon. member, I shall gladly clarify them.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that the hotel owner, as a businessman, will oppose the customs of his clients in his area?

I should very much like to reply. I want to tell the hon. member that what is involved here is not what he thinks. The hotelier is a businessman who has to consider his shareholders, and has to ensure that his business shows a profit.

That is correct.

Yes, that is correct. In other words, the hotelier has to throw open his doors as widely as possible. [Interjections.]

You are wrong.

I am wrong? I still want to meet the hotelier who takes the policy of the National Party into account when he can make money. I am now telling the hon. members that the hotelier is going to throw open his hotel as widely as he possibly can, so that he can make the maximum profit. It is our responsibility of those of us on this side of the House, to tell him what the policy of this Government is, and this is what we are doing.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—78: Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—35: Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter,

D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure was proposed by the South. African Law Commission in a report which was tabled in this House on 26 March 1975. The commission found that when a debt bears interest, but the rate of interest is not governed by a contract or a trade custom or in any other manner, there is uncertainty concerning the rate of interest applicable to such a debt. The “current rate of interest” which is sometimes referred to is a vague expression of uncertain meaning. The current rates of interest on, for example, savings accounts, mortgage loans and fixed deposits are all different and they constantly fluctuate. Consequently the current rate of interest has to be proved by evidence. If it is not proved, mora interest and interest on judgment debts are awarded by the courts at a rate of 6%, which is unrealistic in the light of interest rates generally charged at the moment. Accordingly, the commission points out that it pays a debtor to postpone payment of his debt as long as possible because he can earn higher interest on his money. This tends to result in unnecessary litigation and the lodging of appeals which cannot succeed on merit.

†The Law Commission also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that according to the judgments of our courts a claimant in the Supreme Court is only entitled to interest on a judgment debt if he also specifically claims such interest. Should he fail to do so, the interest is forfeited or the claimant has to institute a separate claim again for interest on the judgment debt. This causes unnecessary litigation and costs. Rule 58 (2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules provides that a judgment for the payment of money bears interest from the date of judgment until the date of payment, at the rate determined by the court or, if no rate of interest is determined, at 6% per annum. The Commission deems a similar provision necessary for the Supreme Court, but the rate of interest should be adjustable.

The Law Commission therefore recommends that provision be made that a rate of interest shall be prescribed from time to time, which must be applicable to any debt in respect of which a rate of interest is not regulated by other means. In respect of judgment debts, provision should be made for interest to accrue automatically at the prescribed rate from the date of judgment, without it being necessary to specifically claim interest on the judgment debt. The prescribing of a rate of interest will eliminate the uncertainty and unnecessary litigation relating to the question which rate of interest is applicable. Costs will be saved and it will provide an opportunity to continually apply a realistic rate of interest which can be adapted to the demands at any time.

*The proposals of the Law Commission are supported. Accordingly, provision is made in clause 1 of the Bill for the circumstances under which the prescribed rate of interest will apply, and for such a rate of interest to be prescribed. Clause 2 gives effect to the proposal concerning judgment debts. Clause 3 merely provides for transitional provisions. In terms of clause 4, the measure is made applicable to the territory of South West Africa as well. If the legislation is passed, it will have to be put into effect at a later date in order to afford an opportunity for the preliminary investigation into the rate of interest to be prescribed.

Mr. Speaker, this is a thoroughly good Bill which has the full support of the official Opposition. It is a remarkable thing that the legal rate of interest on a judgment debt has for more than 100 years been exactly what it is now, namely 6%. Indeed, the Law Commission in their report indicated that in 1860 the Supreme Court in the Cape stated that the legal rate of interest was 6%. This was 115 years ago. I think that perhaps the most interesting of the provisions of this Bill is that interest will also run now in respect of costs. I think this is a very good provision because it will avoid those many situations of which some hon. members in this House are personally aware, where appeals are lodged merely to stave off the day when costs have to be paid. If the rate of interest on costs is to be a realistic one which is laid down from time to time this will avoid these appeals being lodged. As the position is now, people make money by lodging am appeal because they receive a far higher rate of interest on the money that they don’t have to pay. I should also like to say for the information of the House that those responsible for making the recommendations to the Law Commission are themselves quite satisfied with the form of the Bill as it stands. We accept it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister one question. I want to say immediately that we fully support what is being proposed here. I just want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he will tell us what this means in relation to a specific set of circumstances. Clause 1(1) states, inter alia—

The hon. the Minister has already made it clear that the rate of interest has to be prescribed after consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance and that it will be changed from time to time. This is not a case where a borrower and a lender sit down and agree on a rate of interest. The only question we wish to ask is this: Where the clause says that interest shall be calculated at the rate prescribed under subsection (2) as at the time when such interest begins to run, does it mean that that rate of interest will run until the debt is repaid, or will it run until the hon. the Minister in conjunction with the Minister of Finance changes the rate? In other words, will the rate fluctuate until the debt is paid? We would have thought in all common sense that if after a month the hon. the Minister of Justice, together with the hon. the Minister of Finance, decided to lower the rate of interest, or indeed to increase it, that rate of interest should then apply to the debt until it is paid and that the rate should not be fixed for the entire period.

Our only intention in saying that interest shall be calculated at the rate prescribed under subsection (2) as at the time when such interest begins to run unless a court of law, on the ground of special circumstances relating to the debt, orders otherwise, is simply to give the courts the right to exercise a discretion in the light of the prevailing circumstances. In other words, we do not bind the courts completely to a specific rate of interest. If special circumstances prevail, we give the courts the right to exercise their discretion. I think the answer to the question is to be found in clause 3, which says that the rate of interest prescribed in the first notice published in the Gazette under clause 1(2) shall be deemed to have been prescribed thereunder at the time when such interest began to run.

Will that be the rate for the whole period?

That will be for the whole period, from the time the interest begins to run.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. the Minister’s answer, but I am not sure that it is reasonable. Let us assume that the court lays down a rate of interest of, say, 13% after the hon. the Minister in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance has prescribed a rate. Let us say that it takes a year for the debtor to repay the money owing by him and that after three months the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Finance agree that the rate of interest should come down. It would be a simple matter to calculate the interest owing. As the person owing the money is not a willing party in the sense that the rate of interest to be paid by him is laid down, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not be prepared to consider an amendment to the effect that the interest should be calculated for each period at the rate for the appropriate time as agreed between him and the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Sir, it depends on the date on which interest becomes payable ex mora. If the debtor does not pay the amount owing on the date on which the debt is due and payable, then the creditor goes to court. If the parties have agreed to a rate of interest, then obviously that will be the rate payable, but if no rate of interest has been agreed to, then the rate of interest prescribed in the first notice published in the Gazette under clause 1(2) shall apply from the date on which interest becomes payable ex mora. I think it is a fairly simple matter.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Last year a Liquor Amendment Bill was introduced, which was not proceeded with because of the pressure of business. Only the most urgent provisions thereof were passed by means of the Second General Law Amendment Act. Certain of the provisions which were not passed and other new amendments are contained in the Bill which is now serving before the House. At this stage, I only want to refer to the most important principles involved.

Section 5 of the Liquor Act, 1928, provides for certain actions on which the Act is not applicable, such as the sale of liquor in a refreshment room in the Parliamentary buildings or in a building in which a provincial council is in session. In terms of clause 1, this exemption is extended, firstly, to buildings in which the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the South African Indian Council are in session and, secondly, to the sale of South African manufactured sweets containing alcohol, to liquor licensees and certain exempted persons.

Section 6 of the Liquor Act makes it possible at the moment for certain bodies to sell liquor without a licence, for example, National Parks and the restaurant in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. In terms of the provisions of clause 2, ministerial authority can be granted for the sale of liquor in a restaurant of the hotel school in Johannesburg, or any other similar school where hotel staff are trained.

Clause 3 provides for the transfer of a wine farmer authority.

Clause 12 deals with the days and hours of sale by certain licensees. Provision is being made in subsection (a) for the holder of a wholesale liquor licence who does not deal directly with the public and the holder of a beer brewer’s licence to sell or deliver liquor until 8 o’clock in the evening instead of 6 o’clock in the evening, and also for such licensees to deliver liquor on election days to approved wholesale depots, all licensees and persons exempted from the obligation to hold a liquor licence. Subsection (b) retains the existing hours of sale in respect of bars and hotels but provides that extended hours of sale can be permitted on application in the case of bars, as is the case at the moment with restaurant liquor licences. The hours of sale in respect of wine and malt licences are being amended by subsection (c), to distinguish between licences, on the one hand, granted by the local liquor licensing boards, and licences granted to accommodation institutions and, on the other hand, licences granted by the Minister of Justice in respect of business undertakings such as the so-called “steak houses”. The existing hours of the former group are retained. In the case of the latter group, hours can be determined according to the nature of each particular case and with regard to the needs. In terms of subsection (d), the holder of a wholesale liquor licence, who does not deal directly with the public is being enabled to sell and deliver liquor to the commander of a ship on any day, including a closed day, and at any time.

Section 76A was inserted in the Liquor Act in 1969. That section provides briefly that the holders of wholesale liquor licences are not allowed to deal directly with the public, unless certain requirements are met. However, this section never became operative, because problems arose in connection with its interpretation. The provisions have been reworded in clause 14 to eliminate the problems and to fit in with the new principles contained in section 55A inserted in the Act last year. That section provides for the conversion of certain wholesale liquor licences into bottle liquor licences. The holders of wholesale liquor licences who qualify to convert their licences into bottle liquor licences, and who decide not to do so, and licensees who do not qualify, are prohibited in terms of clause 14 to deal directly with the public.

In terms of clause 16 the holder of a wholesale liquor licence who does not deal directly with the public and the holder of a beer brewer’s licence, can obtain authority to maintain a so-called “hospitality room” where quests and other persons can be entertained.

In clause 17 the holder of a meal time wine and malt licence is authorized to sell other fermented beverages such as apple cider.

In clause 19 it is envisaged to amend section 100quin(2) of the Act. The said section grants the Minister the power to prohibit the supply of liquor at a bottle-store to certain classes of persons. Such a prohibition cannot be imposed for a period longer than 12 months, and cannot be subject to conditions either. It can be imposed only on written representations and reports, although, in practice, it is only done after a public inquiry by the National Liquor Board. Use is made of the provisions of this section where it is found, after an inquiry, that the supply of liquor to certain classes of persons, gives rise to undesirable conditions.

In practice, it has been found that the provisions of the section produce problems in its present form, because the powers conferred thereunder are too restrictive. At the moment, for example, the Minister can only impose the prohibition and he has no power to attach any conditions to it or to take the sting out of the prohibition to some extent by providing, for example, that liquor may not be sold after 14h00 on, say, a Friday—that is usually the beginning of the problem time. It has also been found that once a prohibition expires and the bottle-store resumes business, the same conditions can sometimes arise again. Then the whole process has to be repeated, and this takes time and costs a great deal of money. It causes dissatisfaction among the public as well.

The clause makes the holding of a public inquiry by the Liquor Board compulsory. In the second place, the prohibition which the Minister may impose can be for an unspecified period or a specified period; or he can prohibit the sale of liquor on specified days or during specified hours, and he can attach conditions to such a prohibition, for example, that the licensee has to modify the entrances of his bottle-store.

It is well known that there are bottle-stores which cause problems for certain communities and particularly for those living in the vicinity.

Representatives of Fedhasa, i.e. the Federated Hotel Associations, made representations to me in connection with this clause. They were especially concerned about the extension of the prohibition provision from 12 months to an unspecified time. I explained to them, in a long discussion, what our problems are in the application of the present section, and also why it is thought essential to amend it. I want to repeat here what I told them, viz. that it is not my desire to intervene with existing privileges, unless nothing else remains to be done. I have sympathy with liquor dealers, but on the other hand, also with those people who are afflicted by the mis-behaviour of liquor purchasers who do not know how to behave themselves. I gave the representatives of Fedhasa the assurance that the new provisions will be applied with great circumspection, and explained to them that where a prohibition is imposed for an unspecified period, the licensee will be at liberty to apply for the transfer of his bottle-store as a whole or only of that part which gives offence. Something of this nature is possible at the moment in terms of the provisions of section 78.

†In 1969 provision was made for so-called “Ladies’ bars” in liquor-licensed clubs and restaurants. Last year Parliament extended this privilege to premises in respect of which theatre licences, bar licences and wine and malt liquor licences are held. As a result of representations received, it is intended by clause 22 to extend the privilege also to licensed sports-grounds.

Similar provisions in section 71bis relating to classified hotels are deleted by clause 10 and incorporated by clause 22 in section 103A. The effect is that licensees of hotels will not have to wait until their hotels have been classified before they can apply for ladies’ bar privileges. Provision is also made in clause 21 for the employment of women in or in connection with the sale of liquor in the ladies’ bars of licensed sports grounds. Classified hotels have enjoyed this privilege since 1969, and last year this privilege was extended to the other licences I referred to a moment ago. All on-consumption licences except temporary liquor licences, will now qualify for these barmaid privileges. Similar provisions in section 71bis relating to classified hotels are deleted by clause 10 and incorporated by clause 21 in section 102A. The effect is that licensees of hotels will, as in the case of ladies’ bar privileges, not have to wait until their hotels have been classified before they can obtain barmaid privileges. In addition clause 21 makes provision for barmaid privileges in respect of any portion of premises licensed for on-consumption— not only in respect of ladies’ bars. These privileges may accordingly also be granted in respect of ordinary men’s bars, dining rooms, lounges, etc. Application will, however have to be made for such privileges and each case will be considered on merit. Although provision is made for females of the age of 18 years or more, I must emphasize that this is only a minimum age, and in certain circumstances women will not be allowed to serve as barmaids unless they are at least 25 or 30 years or even older. The licensees concerned should be highly satisfied with these concessions in view of the shortage of barmen. I may say that this year is also Women’s year.

A temporary liquor licence can be granted to the secretary of an agricultural show. When provision is made for a so-called “wine-garden” at such a show, women and children cannot be permitted to be in the restricted portion of the temporary licensed premises. It is necessary to eliminate this obstacle especially with a view to the promotion of the image of wine. This is the aim of clause 23. In this regard I also refer to clause 26 which provides for the placing of orders for wine at agricultural shows.

Clause 24 seeks to legalize the present practice of paying for liquor supplied for consumption immediately before or after meals in restaurants, hotels, etc. by means of the credit card system.

Mr. Speaker, now I come to clause 25. Section 114bis of the Liquor Act provides that certain licensees shall at all times satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public in regard to the supply of wine, brandy and malt liquor. If wine is sold, wine for which there is a reasonable demand by the public of at least eight different independent manufacturers must be available for sale. During the past few years various complaints were received that the provisions of section 114bis were not being complied with by licensees. For example, one complaint is that wine lists in licensed hotels and restaurants have become standardized with few or no variations. Although there are about 400 kinds of South African wines on the market, only a limited number is made available to the public and then only the products of a certain manufacturer. As an excuse licensees contend that there is no reasonable demand by the public for other wines. Failure to comply with, the provisions in question, is an offence. It is, however, difficult to prove such an offence. Many licensees are aware of this and take advantage of it. Clause 25 accordingly seeks to make the existing provisions more effective.

Clause 28 must be read in conjunction with clause 32. The essence of the amendments is that vehicles, refrigerators and the like, which are used in connection with unlawful liquor operations, can now be seized by the Police upon which they will become forfeited to the State. These measures are necessary to combat the illicit traffic in liquor which still causes concern.

*Mr. Speaker, in connection with clauses 30 and 31 hon. members will remember that newspapers, locally and overseas, gave wide publicity to the fighting which broke out at the De Beer Stadium at Kimberley in 1970, after the rugby match between the Griquas and the All Blacks who were touring through our country at that time. The matter was investigated, and it was found that liquor which was brought to the sports ground by a certain section and consumed there played a major role in the distasteful incident. Incidents of this nature take place at sports grounds from time to time. In 1949, and in the early sixties, there were serious cases of bottle throwing at Port Elizabeth, and later there was a recurrence at Ellis Park. This House is probably also aware of the disturbances which sometimes occur at soccer matches. It is true that feelings can sometimes run high during sport matches, but if feelings are further aroused by excessive consumption of liquor, it can lead to serious riots. The root of the evil is not necessary to be found in the licensed bars at the sports-grounds, but in the fact that liquor is brought to the sports grounds by members of the public. Clauses 30 and 31 seek to combat these undesirable practices. Clause 30 prohibits anyone from introducing into, possessing or consuming any liquor on a sports ground. Members of the Police Force will have the right to search spectators. Anyone who contravenes the provisions of clause 30, is guilty of an offence. Clause 31 prescribes a maximum fine of R400 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months for such an offence. I believe that these measures will have the desired effect.

In conclusion, I want to point out that most of the provisions of the Bill which is now under discussion were published on 6 December last year in the Gazette for general information and comment. All the comment which was received, has been considered and some provisions have been amended in view thereof. I might mention that representations have also been received to amend the Liquor Act in other respects. I have taken note of the requests and it will receive attention from my department in due course.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has outlined in great detail all the various provisions of the Bill and I think it is not necessary to say very much more about the contents of the Bill. I must say that in Women’s Year he has made a number of concessions and I refer especially to the concession that ladies may go into more [parts of licensed premises and bars than they were able to before. In my opinion that is something to be welcomed. I do not know why he is limiting the age of the barmaids to 30, as I understood him…

No, I said that in certain cases they may have to be 25 or 30, even older.

I do not know what the criterion is or whether it is that the hon. the Minister wants women of experience.

Of age.

Oh, “of age”. I wonder why he chose the age of 30 or older. At any rate, it is an advance.

It is unfortunate that it has become necessary to introduce into the legislation provisions relating to sports grounds, but I am afraid that the evidence which the hon. the Minister has before him is in my opinion such that it justifies a measure such as this. The evidence has regard to the ugly and unfortunate scenes which there were recently at some soccer games and indeed at one rugby game. It is a great pity. In Durban it is a very well-known part of the character of Kingsmead cricket ground that there is a corner which is known as “Castle Corner”, but there they have never thrown bottles or cans on to the field. I am sorry that the behaviour of a few has caused this to become necessary.

I merely stand up to say that in so far as we on these benches are concerned, liquor—the Bill deals only with liquor— is a matter for conscience and in so far as the members of my party are concerned, they will have a free vote; they will be free of the Whips. I just say that, Sir, so that you will know that you will have to have your wits about you more without the help of the Whips from this side in this regard. I also want to say that in my opinion in the first place the Bill is a great improvement on the law as it is and in the second place it demonstrates the necessity, when you look at the clauses of a Bill like this and try to bring them into line with the sections of the principal Act, of a consolidated Bill to come before this House.

But first we want to bring in all the amendments.

I see. In so far as I am concerned, I support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the United Party members will be free of the Whips. Some of them are free of the Whips while others have the Whips’ privileges withdrawn. [Interjections.] There appears to be some inconsistency here.

In so far as the Bill is concerned, it relates mainly to technical matters such as the extension and regulation of consumption hours and the classification of the areas of authority. When one reads through the Bill, one gets the impression that those aspects are being improved and that certain of the objectives of the department are being streamlined. I may say that we have no objections to the Bill as a whole. We assume that there has been consultation with the various authorities, for instance the hotel industry, and with the people concerned in regard to the new provisions contained in the Bill. I should like to have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the Bill is, in fact, in accordance with the consultations which he has held.

Clause 14 deals with the restrictions placed on wholesale liquor licence holders to deal directly with the public except after having been granted permission under certain, and in this case, unspecified conditions. I assume that the conditions will be specified when permission is granted. I would request that a more detailed explanation of this particular clause be given. I do hope that the position will not be more restrictive in the future than it has been in the past, because liquor—I will not deal with it in detail—is already one of the most heavily taxed commodities on the market, and there are many not so wealthy people who go to wholesalers and purchase their wine requirements by the case. I would like this privilege not to be limited.

Clauses 21 and 22 are probably the provisions arousing the most interest. These make provision for the extension of the right to employ female staff in connection with the sale of liquor on licensed premises. Such persons may now be employed in respect of on-consumption licences and not necessarily only in respect of a restricted portion of the premises. This is an advance which is to be welcomed. I think barmaids and waitresses do much to add tone and, to my mind, also reasonable sobriety to many establishments. The extension of this practice of employing females in these capacities can do, in my view, no harm, and I am sure it will be an added incentive to moderation.

Another clause I would like to refer to, and one which I welcome, is clause 24, which relates to the modernization of the law in regard to the use of credit cards, something which is of great importance and which is growing in volume month by month. As I understand it, this merely legalizes what is already a growing practice and simplifies payment methods. We agree with this provision.

I would like to mention the proposed paragraph (hA) to be inserted in section 166 of the principal Act by clause 30. I believe this may give rise to some debate. This deals with the banning of liquor on sports grounds. There is a certain amount of good in this clause, and possibly quite a bit of bad. In my own experience I have seen at various rugby fields and even on cricket fields and soccer grounds, incidents happening which would never have taken place if it had not been for the abuse of liquor. I think several of us have seen this. I remember only too well the angry reaction of a crowd and the assault of a referee at a match at Ellis Park—I think it was last year—after some disputed decisions had been made. I have also seen, as we all have seen at rugby and other matches, fights breaking out amongst various sections of the crowd. I do think that this provision in all reality, will do much to eliminate this type of undesirable incident. It can also ensure greater enjoyment of the game by the non-drinking spectators. This provision however, also introduces new difficulties. If one looks at it, one will see that it bans people from bringing any liquor on to any portion of a sportsground to which the public have access. There are many clubs in South Africa which have sportsgrounds to which the public have access. I am thinking, for example, of the Wanderers Sports-ground in Johannesburg, which has more than one sports stadium and to which the public is granted access on numerous Saturdays. Bearing in mind the vastness of the grounds and some of the sports stadiums where not necessarily international matches are played and where there are not necessarily going to be some thousands of people taken into account, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with this sort of organization to ensure that the difficulties which are now going to be introduced, will be overcome. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what consultation there has been. For instance, the habit of going to watch a cricket match on a Saturday afternoon, taking a cool-bag with you and sitting under the trees, where the public are invited and allowed to come is, I believe, a very civilized pastime. If this provision is to come into being, this practice will immediately be terminated. It is not every game where thousands of people are present and crowd reactions to events in the sports stadium take place. Not every game has the tensions of a test match or arouses such strong feelings among the spectators. The vast majority of matches and games played in sports stadiums throughout South Africa are games which arouse interest and which people enjoy, but at which fights and difficulties of that nature never arise. We are in fact throwing away a South African tradition. I am thinking of the “omie”, the farmer, the businessman and others who come to watch rugby with their biltong and their hip flasks. I know such people because they are South Africans like ourselves. The hip flasks of South Africa have played a very important role in sporting events in South Africa over the years. I want to say that this provision will give rise to a completely new style of Africana because these hip flasks will no longer be able to be used.

There will be a completely new breed of hippies.

Are we not going too far with this measure? Are we not losing balance? Surely we are mature enough not to stop practices which are harmless, even enjoyable, merely because of the limited abuse of these practices by a small number of undisciplined members of the public. Surely when big crowds are expected, the answer lies in better control and stiffer penalties for the abuse of liquor, and not in a blanket ban which penalizes everybody for the sins of the few.

Having raised those few queries, I shall sit down.

Mr. Speaker, we have no division in our caucus on the question of the Second Liquor Amendment Bill. We have no objections to the Second Reading of the Bill and we shall support it. We have one or two queries on different clauses which we shall raise at the Committee Stage.

I want to say at once that I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Sandton about bringing liquor on to sportsgrounds. I see the hon. the Minister’s difficulties and all of us have observed with dismay the tensions that are sometimes caused at sporting events, tensions which are undoubtedly heightened by the use of alcohol. However, once one forbids alcohol to be purchased at a sportsground anyway, it does not seem logical to me to prevent a person having alcohol on his person or in his vehicle. Indeed, many people come to sporting events with their lunch baskets and their own liquor and sit around quite peacefully, enjoying the atmosphere of the sportsgound. I would agree that one should not penalize the vast majority of the public who are well behaved just because certain people behave badly. The answer, I think, lies in better control and sterner measures being taken against those people who break the peace at sporting events.

As the only woman member in this House, I must say, of course, that I am duly grateful to the hon. the Minister for the concessions he has granted to members of my sex in this Bill.

There is now a new profession open to you.

I am extremely grateful that he is allowing women to enter the hitherto forbidden precincts of licensed premises. I hope that one day he will find it possible to lift the ban altogether so that we can have the same jolly atmosphere that one finds, shall we say, in the old-fashioned English pub where everybody has a drink together. I agree with hon. members who have said that the presence of women will probably bring a more decorous atmosphere to those places. I am also glad of the extension to the employment of women in pubs, but I seem to misunderstand the hon. the Minister in this respect. The Bill states that the relevant age-limit is 18 years, but I understood the hon. the Minister in introducing the Bill to speak of an age-limit of 25 to 30 years.

I said that in certain cases the age-limit would be 25 years.

I see, so the limit of 25 years applies in certain cases but the general provision of over 18 years remains. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is protecting the women or the men. It does seem to me incongruous that we passed a Bill in this House a few years ago allowing girls under the age of 15 to marry without ministerial permission and yet here we are very carefully protecting them from entering pubs. However, that just happens to be my personal view. As I say, we have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that our party allows us freedom of conscience in a matter such as this. Generally speaking, I find that the members of our party are most reasonable people. Mr. Speaker, when I was a student at university in England there were ladies who used to come and clean our rooms and make our beds and so forth. The rule was that all these ladies had to be senex et horribile visu. Those people who have done Roman-Dutch Law may know what that means. Possibly this is what is needed in regard to barmaids!

It seems to me that in this particular Bill there are two main issues that have attracted the interest of the public and the Press. These have already been mentioned. I refer to the sportsgrounds and spectator area issue as well as the liberalization of the law relating to barmaids. It seems to me that if we are to draw a principle from this Bill and a series of other Bills that have passed through this House relating to liquor, the principle fundamental to all of them has been the wider extension of liquor facilities to the public of South Africa. I think it is true to say that over the past 10 or 12 years we have had a series of Bills that have made liquor more freely available to the people of South Africa. There are a few other points I wish to make. We see that credit will be given.We notice that the wholesale delivery hours as well as the rights of wholesalers are to be extended. We notice that a number of the provisions are aimed at cutting red tape. We also notice that the Police report issue will now be absorbed into the bureaucratic control of the Liquor Board. It seems to me that we should perhaps consider some of these factors at a later stage.

The constant extension of the availability of liquor is being carried out by this Government and this House in the face of certain incontrovertible facts of our South African life. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of these facts in relation to the principle, as I see it, of this Bill.

In the first instance I want to quote briefly from the report of the Secretary for Justice for 1973. This is what he had to say—

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I am not one of those. The Secretary goes on to say—

He goes on to give another Roman-Dutch quotation—quot homines tot senteniae. He goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. The hon. member for Krugersdorp touched on it during the last session. Here we have the Secretary of the Department of Justice, a civil servant, who feels constrained to raise this very matter in the report associated with the liquor industry, and here we have a Bill before the House which seeks to liberalize our liquor laws. This is one of the few areas in which I would say that we have a liberalistic Government. Sir, the Minister makes mention of the fact that the supply of wine is being extended. I want to point out that in 1966 there a very interesting survey was done by Prof. Gillis at the University of Cape Town on the drinking habits of Coloured males. The survey showed that 22% of Coloured males over the age of 20 were alcoholics or had very serious drinking problems. The drinking problem of most of these Coloured people arises from the consumption of wine, not hard liquor. They get drunk on the fortified wines and the concoctions which the liquor industry today prepares and sells at a low price through the medium of very irresponsible advertisements. Furthermore, another incontrovertible fact is that a survey by the National Institute of Road Research, which is being done in Pretoria and Durban, has shown that liquor is a factor in 40% of all traffic accidents in South Africa, in 65% of all accidents at night and in 80% of all pedestrian accidents. Furthermore, Sir, it is reliably estimated by Sanca that 6% of all White working males are alcoholics. It is estimated that 162 000 Coloureds and Whites are alcoholics. In Europe it is estimated that 4,5% of the total population are alcoholics. There is no suggestion, Sir, that in South Africa with our liberal liquor laws and our vigorous liquor industry with its vested interests, our figure would be below 4,5%. If anything, the figure in South Africa would be above 4,5%, but if we take it at 4,5%, then we have 900 000 people in this country with serious drinking problems, not just mild drinking problems. Sir, think of the horror of the disruption of family life caused by the abuse of alcohol. The hon. member for Westdene, who is not in the House at the moment, was in charge of the social welfare work of the Dutch Reformed Church. I am sure he could tell us stories which would horrify us of the effects of alcohol on the lives of our people. There are at least nine ex-ministers of religion sitting in this House, and there is one ordained minister of religion sitting in this House, who could tell us what liquor is doing to our people. Sir, it seems to me that we could be irresponsible as a House if we did not take note of the fact that there is a gross abuse of liquor in this country. We have got to arrive at some balance between a laissez-faire attitude and our responsibility to our community. The question is how far we should allow people to do what they like, and how far we as a Government should take responsibility for the actions of our community? Sir, this Government has never been shy to draw the line very heavily away from a policy of laissez-faire; on the contrary, it has always taken a line against a policy of laissez-faire. I believe, Sir, that we must look at this matter also in terms of the liquor industry. Sir, the liquor industry is supported by a vast advertising industry, and much of the advertising is extremely expensive. It is very well done and it is in good taste, but all this advertising creates a fantasy world of success, of sexual success, of material success and of social success, but we all know it is lies and that the real truth of alcohol is broken lives and disrupted homes, with all the horrors those bring. We have a particularly irresponsible example of advertising at the moment in regard to this drink called Kansas City, which has a 5% alcohol content. There is no mention of the fact that it is an alcoholic drink. In fact, I thought it was a cool drink until a few weeks ago. [Laughter.] I did not like it. Mr. Speaker, this is irresponsible advertising, and it seems to us that the Minister, although he is prepared to liberalize our laws all the time, and this Bill is a prize example of it, does nothing about it. No suggestions come from that side as to how to counter the effects of liquor, how to take positive action as a Government to see to the needs of our people. Sir, we cannot make alcohol available, as the Secretary for Justice said, like green mealies, and sell it everywhere. Alcohol is not that kind of substance. It has an effect which has a very serious influence on our community. Why cannot the Minister introduce legislation such as they have in Norway, banning the advertising of liquor, or at least make advertising a nondeductible expense against tax.

Order! The hon. member is not relevant now.

It seems to me that if we are going to combat the effects of alcohol effectively, we have to take some kind of stand on this issue. When I look, for example, at the convictions for drunkenness which emerged from the report I have just read out, 124 000, it reminds me of the fact that in reply to a question last year, the hon. the Minister said that during the same period there had only been 20 000 convictions under the drug laws and 99% of those were in respect of dagga. Now, what is the de facto position? Alcohol and dagga are both drugs, and many young people are going for alcohol today because it is cheaper, it is more freely available and it does not have the problems associated with dagga. As a result we have this vast number of convictions for drunkenness. Sir, we all know how many people in our society are found drunk, but never actually get convicted, so that this number of convictions is but the tip of the iceberg. It seems to me that while cracking down so hard on drugs, we are not prepared to act strongly against the alcoholic drug which has a much more serious effect on our whole society than drugs.

There are various references to section 100bis in this Bill. Now, section 100bis is a gross example of discrimination. It is the section which permits Blacks to get liquor ad lib from their employers and from all sorts of people. I believe that this House should be aware of the fact that responsible Black people object to the abuse of liquor among their own people. Furthermore, in every Black area one will find that almost the first and best building that is erected with Government funds is a liquor outlet. I want to tell you, Sir, that just as many people believe that drugs are a communist conspiracy to undermine our society and to bring in permissiveness, so many Black people regard the constant pushing of liquor at them as a Nationalist plan to demoralize the character of the Black people. [Interjections.] I want to tell the House this because hon. members opposite seem to be out of touch with a good deal of Black thinking. Most Black people are very concerned about this.

Sir, we have another very interesting clause here, this clause granting credit facilities. I do not know very much about economics, but I do know that if a person does not have the money to pay for something, he can get it on credit in South Africa. I also happen to know that if a person does not have money to pay for something and he still gets it, it contributes to inflation. Our liquor industry is a vast industry and for this year the estimated income will be R296 million in respect of excise duties on liquor. Now we are going to increase and boost this whole industry by giving it credit facilities. Credit facilities will be available not only in restaurants but in more general places as well, and liquor may be obtained outside of meal hours. We shall soon have “drink now, pay later” schemes operated by enterprising industries. When these men wake up in their vomit, they might not have the money to pay for the liquor they have bought. This credit facility is going to be compounded. The hon. member for Johannesburg West delivered a very good speech when we were discussing the Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations Vote. He spoke about the poverty syndrome of the Coloured people. He talked about the problems which the Coloured people have. He went on to deal with the awfulness of the hire-purchase system and the effect it had on lowly-paid people. We are now going to give credit to people in order to allow the liquor industry to expand its facilities. Is it really necessary for us to have wholesalers who will be able to deliver liquor till half past eleven at night? To me it is amazing that the liquor industry is allowed to keep hours of this kind. Why must it have advantages and benefits which no other trader is allowed in the country? An unfavourable police report is the one thing which the liquor industry and the liquor lawyers are terrified of. Any lawyer in this House who has dealt with the liquor laws knows that if there is an unfavourable police report even the most clever advocate and lawyer—plenty of them are specializing in the liquor industry—could not possibly counter it with any ease. This factor, from what I gather, is now going to be absorbed and a police report will only necessarily be forthcoming as a result of a request by the National Liquor Board that a particular situation be investigated. It amazes me; dit gaan my verstand te bowe, that a Christian national political party can allow liquor to be so freely available without providing adequate counters to it. It is amazing to me that a party which has a Christian national character can allow a commodity to be so freely available when it can see that this is defiling the very moral character of the people who are under its authority and under its control. I am not in favour of prohibition, but heavens above! Can we allow the liquor trade to advertise so freely and to have carte blanche to purvey a commodity which produces the effect that liquor does? Any hon. member of this House who has worked in hospitals or social welfare organizations or who is a minister of religion knows very well what the real effects of liquor are. Sometimes it seems to me, and sometimes I wonder whether…

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude but now he must come back to the Bill which is under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Bill which is part of the constant expanding of liquor rights is the sort of Bill this House should decline to pass until such time as it can see that this Government is making some effort to counter the effects of the abuse of liquor. We have had a history—of which this Bill is another chapter—of the constant liberalization of the liquor laws. It seems to me that we will be throwing away our Christian national principles for the sake of the worship of the vested liquor interests if we allow such a Bill to pass. I shall be opposing this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, for Houghton said they had no problems and therefore theirs was a caucus decision. I seem to remember the pamphlets and the holier-than-thou statements: “We do not have caucuses and we will not be bound.” This is a matter of conscience as far as the United Party is concerned, but I realize that where there is a lack of conscience a caucus decision is necessary.

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Pinetown, who was entirely free to speak on a matter of conscience, unlike the Progressive Party where there is an absence of conscience, in order to express his personal views. The hon. the Minister will doubtless deal with the points he has raised, but I think it is only fair to point out that the extensions do not, in fact, make liquor more easily available. They are administrative extensions. It is the practice now, when one has a drink with a meal, to have the liquor put on the same account as the meal, whether it be a lunch or a dinner. This regularizes the normal practice. Similarly a grocer or any other business can make deliveries whenever it is desired to do so. Particularly with reference to the findings of the Driessen Commission, in order to keep traffic off the streets during peak hours, greater flexibility is necessary.

I do not, however, want to speak for the trade. I want to speak rather from the point of view of the moderate consumer. [Interjections.] I realize that in doing so I am a lonely figure. I realize that I am speaking for myself only and not for some of my colleagues! Clause 30, which has been referred to before, is a clause which can affect much more than the sort of sports gathering which is contemplated. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he consider amending this clause to make it applicable to sports grounds to which members of the public are admitted on payment of an admission fee. In other words, this should be confined to sport involving paid attendance. The problems arise when there are crowds which, in their hundreds or thousands at a stadium, become excited in support of one or other team. I am sure it is not the intention to have this clause apply to village cricket or sports of that nature. If this provision were limited to paid admission sports, it would not cover a wide variety where there is no problem and where there is no evil. It would cover those sports, however, where difficulties have arisen as a result of the abuse of liquor. I can think of no occasion when there has been any difficulty at any sporting event where admission has not been charged. I cannot remember ever having read of trouble because of the abuse of liquor at a sports ground where the admission is free. I have in mind for example, a village cricket team which entertains a team from a neighbouring village or from a long way away. The game usually takes place on a Saturday. The players have lunch under the trees and wine or beer is perhaps served with the lunch. This would now be prohibited unless a licence were obtained. Such a licence would not be granted because the venue is not a proper bar. This is the sort of social occasion that takes place every weekend throughout the length and breadth of South Africa.

At gymkhanas.

The same applies to gymkhanas.

What about the Durban July?

There is also the traditional champagne lunch at the Durban July or any other race meeting. Special provisions are often made in car-parks for picnics. At the Durban July people often arrive on the previous day in order to be assured of a parking space. They bring their picnic lunches with them and often have a drink with their food. This particular case is covered because we are dealing with a paid admission event. I accept the fact. There are, however, dozens upon dozens of other examples. After a friendly rugby game, the chaps usually get together. I make the point that where admission is paid, this should apply. However, there is no provision made for exemption, and in my opinion provision should also be made so that exemption could be granted for instance in the case of the Durban July or other race meetings. If such provision is made, it will be possible to obtain exemption on special application for particular occasions and for particular portions of a sports ground. It may even be possible to exempt Castle Corner or the Oaks at Newlands.

The other point I want to make is that if the legislation is to be applied as it reads at the moment, then there should be an amendment similar to that for show-grounds to enable women to enter into the restricted area. At the moment those parts of a showground where liquor is served are usually restricted to men and if it is to be closed off from any other portion of a showground, then women should also be admitted to the licensed portion where liquor is legitimately sold at sports ground as well.

I do not want to repeat or deal with any of the matters that have already been dealt with. I support the measure with this one reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill and in support of what my hon. friend, the member for Durban Point, has said. Speaking as a policeman who has had to deal with liquor affairs and who has had to submit reports over the years, I can see that the Bill is an improvement and that it is going to help the trade in many ways in spite of what my hon. friend, the member for Pine-town, has to say about it. The hon. the Minister will remember that when provisions were introduced to make liquor more freely available to non-Whites, everybody was saying that there would be chaos and revolution and that blood would be flowing. Those provisions were introduced at the behest of the Police and we did not have all that drunkenness. If we start to re-introduce restrictions not only on the Whites but also on the non-Whites we will be going back to the old system where they drank liquor under the most unhygienic conditions and, what is more, also drank the most unhygienic liquor.

I should also like to support the hon. member for Durban Point in his submission about the availability of liquor on sports grounds. There are people who not only go to the July or the Gold Cup, but who go to dozens of other sports meetings. What about the farm parents who go to see their sons at boarding school? They have a picnic lunch and there is always a bit of liquor, whether it is wine or beer, and they know, as I know, that the Police are not going to spy around there. However, I do think that in order to make everything above board, clause 30 should be amended in order to make provision for that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. If the hon. member for Sandton will allow me, I shall deal with clauses 14 and 24, to which he referred, in the Committee Stage. Several hon. members referred to clause 30, and I think the hon. member for Durban Point has a point in saying that we should not like to stand in the way of the people who go to an ordinary, innocent cricket match and so on, and if the hon. member for Durban Point will propose an appropriate amendment in the Committee Stage, I can accept it. The hon. members for Houghton and Durban North indicated that they supported the Second Reading and I express my appreciation for that.

As far as the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, I want to say that I agree with most of what he said in connection with liquor. However, I want to cross swords with him where he implies—he did not say it in so many words, but he alleged that the Black people believe it—that the National Party is trying to demoralize them with the freer availability of liquor, which, of course, is absolutely nonsensical. For the hon. member to say something of that sort in this House shows very bad taste, to say the least of it. I do not want to go into it any further. I want to say that as far as I am concerned—and I believe that this is my party’s standpoint as well—we are not in favour of South Africa’s people drinking too much. The whole aim of the Liquor Act is to make liquor available for the reasonable requirements of people. I say very clearly that I am opposed to people drinking too much. I am also concerned about people becoming alcoholics, because this is a social evil, something which we must combat. The Government, through the Department of Social Welfare, is very thoroughly aware of that problem. But having said that, it does not mean, of course, that we must turn off the liquor tap completely for those people who cannot control themselves. The whole idea behind the Liquor Act and behind the so-called liberalization of liquor supply is, of course, not that, but, as the hon. member for Durban Point rightly pointed out to the hon. member for Pinetown, it is an administrative arrangement to remove difficulties, so that the reasonable demands for liquor supply may be met. As regards the evils which arise from liquor, I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that we do not take a backseat to him and his party as far as combating those evils is concerned.

It is only a wave in our history and it will pass.

The hon. member spoke of the credit cards and the fact that people buy liquor on a credit card system. For that reason we have made it a method of payment. Hon. members will remember that the method of payment is cash, but with the system of credit cards, which is really a form of cash dealing, we had to make this possible for people, especially if they want to eat out at night.

I do not think there is much more to say than I have already said. The hon. member for Umlazi spoke about clause 30, and I express my appreciation for the hon. member’s support of the hon. member for Durban Point. It is something which we can give our attention, and if the hon. member will move such an amendment, I shall accept it.

Question put and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz. Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh) supported the demand for a division,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

It has become customary among many of our people, especially in our cities, after they have been to a theatre or a cinema in the evening to go to a steak house for dinner. Now I notice from the proposed clause that wine may be sold with meals up to 9.30 p.m. only. It has become customary among many of our people to have dinner only after they have been to evening shows. In fact, it has already become part of our social life. I do not know in consequence of which representations this amendment is being effected, but I feel that if we were to allow this proposal being passed, it would place many of these owners in a difficult situation as they have spent quite a lot to satisfy the Liquor Board. I also think that if these owners were to apply to sell wine with meals after 9.30 p.m., it would be difficult for them to prove that they do have the clientele. They would first have to make a survey, which they might not be prepared to do. I also feel that if we were to pass this provision, it would mean that there would be discrimination against the natural wines, and if I may couch it in these terms, that natural wines would be penalized. That is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to ask for an assurance and also to raise the query again I raised during the Second Reading. There are establishments which sell liquor direct to the public and which, I believe, hold wholesale licences. I just want the assurance that the position will not be more restrictive in terms of the new clause than it is at present. I say this somewhat diffidently as I may not understand the position completely correctly. I take it that this provision will not stop persons from going to a wholesale liquor establishment to purchase a case of wine as they could do in the past. I merely wanted an assurance in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, at present the position is that persons with wholesale licences are getting the right to obtain bottle licences, which, in fact, is of greater value to them. Most of them have already applied for bottle licences and we have granted those applications. The holder of a wholesale licence is, of course, going to be prohibited to deal with the public. However, we have, first given the other people a chance to get transfer.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment in two parts to this clause. The first part of the amendment I want to move is—

1. (1) On page 30, in line 5, after “access”, to insert:

This will restrict it to those grounds at which admission fees are charged. The second part of the amendment I wish to move is—

1. (2) on page 30, in line 8, after “delivered”, to add:

This provides for a discretion in relation to a race meeting or a gymkhana, which I assume is covered by the definition of “sports ground”, where the controlling body can apply to the chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board for the parking area where the picnic lunches are normally held to be exempted. In other words, the proviso will be extended to cover an authorization by the chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board. However, a further problem arises if there is no liquor licence on the premises. Then the Liquor Licensing Board has no jurisdiction and no exemption can be given. To take the same example, it will have to exempt a gymkhana ground…

“Castle Corner”.

Not the “Castle Corner”—these premises are licensed. [Interjections.] Race courses are licensed. I am thinking now specifically of a place where a gymkhana is held or perhaps a country cricket field where there is no club license and no liquor licence. Fernwood would be an example. A polo ground would be another example. These are places which normally do not have liquor licences granted to them. There cannot be an exemption if there is no liquor licence. Therefore some unlicensed sports grounds as such would have to be exempted as well. In practice, however, it is at the major stadia where the problems occur and so therefore this amendment will not affect the evil which is sought to be combated. All the major sports grounds do in fact have club licences and would therefore not be affected by this exemption. I do not think I need to discuss this any further and I move my amendment.

Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to accept the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, viz. after “access” in line 5 to insert “on payment of an admission fee”. I have listened carefully to the hon. member in regard to the second part of his amendment. I hope that he will be satisfied if I invite him to discuss the matter further with me. I can then have the amendment redrafted in its proper form in accordance with what we both decide and move it in the Other Place. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting the first portion of my amendment and I accept his invitation in regard to the second part of the amendment. Under the circumstances I shall, with leave of the Committee, withdraw the second part of my amendment.

Amendment (2), with leave, withdrawn.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister to make it clear that what he is prepared to allow is that where there is a licence for a racecourse such as Kenilworth or Turffontein, for example, the chairman of the Liquor Board will be able to authorize an additional area, such as a parking area for instance, to be exempt from the provisions of this particular clause.

That is so.

Sir, the second point which is more important is this: There are sportsfields—I am thinking particularly of the polo clubs at Inanda and Wetton—where there is a charge for admission, but where the premises are not licensed. Is the Minister prepared to agree in principle that those shall be exempt from the provisions of this clause?

Mr. Chairman, I was dealing in actual fact with the submissions made by the hon. member for Durban Point. The only difficulty that the hon. member for Durban Point and I have is that we both feel that the wording of the second portion of the amendment should be looked at again. That portion will be amended in the Other Place.

Sir, I also have a problem with the drafting of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. I can agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member, but if I understood the amendment correctly—and I have to speak subject to correction because I have not had a sight of the amendment; I have only been able to take note of it while it was read to the Committee on two occasions…

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I do not know what the hon. Chief Whip over there is making a noise about. I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to allow the amendment to go through in the terms in which it was drafted by the hon. member for Durban Point, because if I understood the amendment correctly, the effect of it would be that the provisions of this clause would not apply on grounds such as Kingsmead, where there is a club liquor licence, or even on one of the local football grounds such as Hartleyvale, where there is a liquor licence. It is a question of drafting, Sir, and I merely appeal to the hon. the Minister to see that the principle which was accepted at the Second Reading of this Bill, that no liquor shall be allowed on grounds of that sort, is not watered down in any way. [Interjections.] Sir, I am entitled to my say, too, and I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that we support him entirely on the principle which he has introduced here or, at any rate, that I support him, speaking for myself, and that I do not wish to have this principle watered down in any way, not even to permit of beer bottles and beer cans on Castle Corner at Kingsmead.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is now before the House contains one substantive provision and amends and repeals a variety of measures. I only want to give a brief indication at this stage of what the provisions entail. Where necessary, particular clauses can be dealt with in detail during the Committee Stage.

Provision is made in clause 1 for a shorter procedure for the registration of deeds in respect of land situated in the Rehoboth Gebiet, in order to enable land-owners to have mortgage bonds registered on their land. A complete land register of all land transactions in the Gebiet is kept in Rehoboth, but mortgage bonds cannot be registered there.

Clauses 2 to 6, which have been inserted at the request of the Association of Law Societies, deal with the admission and readmission of attorneys and the examination of articles by the law societies, and are self-explanatory.

In terms of clause 7, the Trust Moneys Protection Act, 1934, is made applicable to South West Africa. Clause 29 is a consequential amendment to the Administration of Estates Act, 1965.

Provision is made for television licences in clauses 8 and 14 to 21.

Clauses 9 to 12 provide for a smaller deeds registries regulations board, and are also designed to streamline the registration of deeds. These amendments originated with the Prins Committee, which was of the opinion that conveyancers were professional persons and that there was no reason why they could not accept responsibility for the matters referred to in clause 10. Clause 11 eliminates the duplication of certain documents. Because certain conditions relating to a bond are a private matter between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, clause 12 does way with the obligation to examine such conditions.

I should like to take this opportunity of conveying my thanks to members of the committee who conducted the investigation into our deeds registration system and who recommended these amendments. Their recommendations were unanimous. The committee consisted of Mr. M. J. Prins, Chief Magistrate of Pretoria, Mr. E. A. L. Lewis, an attorney and conveyancer, designated by the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa, and Mr. R. J. M. Jones, a registrar of deeds. I trust that these amendments will facilitate the activities in deeds registries without detracting from the effectiveness of our registration system. The report of the committee has not been printed because it contains many references to a very bulky unpublished report on deeds registries which was drawn up previously. It would have served no practical purpose to have had only the former report printed, and to have had both printed would have entailed very great expense. Moreover, the content of the report was of such a technical nature that it would hardly be of interest to the public. Members of the House who would like to inspect these documents may approach me and they will gladly be made available to them.

Clause 13 makes it clear that the prohibition on the publication of the utterances of a restricted person is only applicable as long as the restriction order in respect of that person is in force.

Clause 22 provides for an advisory council for Bantu education to be established for South West Africa as well.

†The Police Act was recently amended to make it possible for persons liable for service in terms of the Defence Act to undergo their training and do duty in the Police Force. Clauses 23 to 25 provide for the annual allotment of such number of persons as the Minister of Defence may determine from those who have indicated their willingness to render service in the Police Force.

Clause 26 provides for the payment of the salary and allowances of a missing member of the Defence Force.

With the establishment of the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions, the personal of the South African Bureau of Standards wee given the choice of transferring their membership to this pension fund. The contributions standing to the credit of members were insufficient to comply with the requirements of the pension fund. The board of the SABS was of the opinion that it was empowered to furnish loans to its personnel for the liquidation of these shortfalls. The State law advisers are, however, of the opinion that the relevant section of the Standards Act, 1962, does not confer such powers. Clause 27 will empower the board of the SABS to grant the necessary loans to its personnel and also authorizes the loans made in the past.

Clause 28 contains a similar provision relating to future loans to employees of the Fuel Research Institute.

The definition of “accommodation establishment” in the Hotels Act, 1965, can be interpreted of include various other establishments, for example, homes for the aged. Clause 30 excludes homes for the aged specifically and authorizes the Minister of Tourism to determine that an establishment or establishments belonging to a category specified by him shall for the purposes of the Hotels Act be deemed not to be accommodation establishments.

Section 16(2)(b) of the Prescription Act, 1969, upholds the position under the previous prescription legislation in respect of debts arising out of policy loans made before 1 January 1974. Policy holders of certain insurance companies are, however, according to the provisions of policies issued before that date, entitled to make loans. The policies cannot be amended by the companies concerned and interest on such loans is now extinguished by prescription three years after it becomes due Section 16(2)(b) is now amended by clause 31 to make the date on which the policy was taken out the decisive date, and not the date on which the loan was made, so as to ensure that those companies are not adversely affected by the new provisions of the Prescription Act.

To enable the Bible Society of South Africa to extend its activities to South West Africa, the Bible Society of South Africa Act, 1970, is made applicable to South West Africa by clauses 32 and 33.

Section 19 of the Commission of Fresh Produce Markets Act, 1970, empowers the Minister of Agriculture to fix tariffs payable to the owner of a fresh produce market in respect of the use of or the performance of a service at such a market. All services rendered by owners of fresh produce markets are, however, not covered by that provision, with the result that they are not compensated for some of them. Clause 34 now authorizes the Minister of Agriculture to fix tariffs in respect of all such services.

Members of market advisory committees are at present appointed for a period of one year. The Agriculture Union is of the opinion that members should rather be appointed for two years as in the case of agricultural control boards. Clause 35 gives effect to this proposal.

Section 3(f) of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets Act, 1970, empowers the commission to order persons concerned in the management and conduct of fresh produce markets to supply information required by the commission. A refusal to comply with this provision is now made punishable by clause 36.

*Clause 37 is designed to prevent Bantu consumers to whom services are rendered by the Bantu administration boards from having to pay two sets of charges, in the first place those of the suppliers, who are the local authorities, and in the second place those of the Bantu administration boards.

Clauses 38 and 39 provide for the delegation of powers conferred upon local authorities in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, to a committee or an officer of a local authority. Provision is also made for the remuneration of local authorities for the services rendered by them in terms of that Act.

Clause 40 rectifies a printing error in the National Road Safety Act.

In terms of clause 41, a company which is to be established and which will manage the Sishen/Saldanha Bay railway line for Iscor is exempted from payment of transfer duty, stamp duty and office fees in respect of the transfer of any immovable property from Iscor to that company, which will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iscor. As the position stands at the moment, Iscor is paying these fees and the new company will also have to pay them.

Clauses 42 and 43 authorize the Minister of Economic Affairs to make regulations controlling the taking on board on fishing boats of any fire-arms and other instruments for frightening away seals, and make provision for exemptions.

Clause 44 authorizes that Minister and the Director of Sea Fisheries to delegate certain powers of control and inspection in connection with the protection of marine resources.

In terms of section 2 of the Continental Shelf Convention which was signed at Geneva on 29 April 1958 and of which South Africa is a member, coastal states possess sovereign rights of control over the exploitation of natural resources occurring on the continental shalf off the coasts of such states which is situated outside the territorial waters and fishery zones up to a depth of 200 metres.

Although it has not been necessary up to now to control the exploitation of the natural resources on the continental shelf of the Republic by means of South African legislation, it is deemed desirable to provide the necessary legislation in order to protect and enforce the Republic’s rights. The necessary provision is being made in clause 45.

Clause 46 provides for all the related psychology profession to be represented on one professional council.

In clause 47, the domicile requirement, which did not exist before the commencement of Act 56 of 1974, is removed in respect of medical practitioners and dentists who obtained their qualifications elsewhere.

Clause 48 authorizes the S.A. Medical and Dental Council to make the right of psychologists to practise subject to registration in a particular category, such as clinical psychologists and industrial psychologists. This amendment is essential in order to protect the public.

Clause 49 rectifies an oversight which occurred when an amendment was accepted earlier this year in the Committee Stage of the Groot Constantia State Estate Control Act, 1975.

Clause 50 repeals several laws which have become obsolete or for which there is no longer any need.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has outlined the various clauses in this Bill. It is obviously a Bill which deals with so many different matters and so many different departments that it is impossible to say that there is, in fact, any principle in the Bill. Under these circumstances it is, in our view, a Bill which should be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I must say that it is an extraordinary circumstance, that the pattern seems to have changed to such an extent that we now get a General Law Amendment Bill about which we do not have any fights during the Second Reading. I do not know whether that is good or bad, but nevertheless that is the position in relation to this Bill. The hon. the Minister of Justice cannot be expected to deal in depth with all the problems that might arise in the Committee Stage, and therefore I think it is necessary—and I hope the hon. Government Whip is going to listen to this— to indicate which of the clauses we might want to discuss, oppose or propose amendments to in the Committee Stage so that the Ministers concerned could be present during the Committee Stage on Monday. We also want to indicate, of course, that as far as we are concerned, there are a number of clauses and a number of Ministers that will not be required when the Bill is discussed in Committee. Clause 1 is all right as far as we are concerned. Those dealing with the Department of Justice—clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—we have no quarrel with.

No quarrel?

No quarrel.

He need not be here.

No, the hon. the Minister of Justice will, I am afraid, have to be here. I shall now deal, for the sake of brevity, with those clauses in respect of which we will require the relevant Ministers to be present. In respect of clauses 8, 16 and 17 we would require the hon. the Minister of National Education to be here to deal with the relevant matters. The hon. the Minister of Justice will be here anyway so that any problem that may arise in respect of clause 10 can be dealt with in any event. For all those clauses relating to sections of the Radio Act, the hon. the Minister of National Education will be required to be present. In respect of the second part of clause 30, we shall require the hon. the Minister of Tourism to be present, and in respect of clauses 34, 35 and 36 we would especially require the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to be present because certain amendments may be moved in respect of those clauses. In respect of clause 37, we hope that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs will be here because, in the view of the official Opposition, the clause as it now stands is not satisfactory. Lastly, in respect of clause 50(B) relating to the repeal of the Agricultural Warehouse Act, the presence of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will also be required. There is, as I have said, no point in discussing these matters at this stage. We shall consequently not oppose the Bill at this stage. We hope to discuss the matter more fruitfully in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not be able to be present during the Committee Stage and therefore I should like to mention one or two matters relating to the Department of Justice now. Other matters will be dealt with in the Committee Stage by other members of the Reform Party.

Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 contain amendments to the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act and are all to be welcomed. I presume that these amendments have all been fully discussed with the law societies and that they meet with their approval. Clause 5 is most helpful because it seeks to eliminate the three-year time factor which has in the past come into play when articles of clerkship have been broken. I am aware of several heart-break cases involving young articled clerks in the past and the discretion now given to the court, where it properly rests, will ensure that such cases are obviated in the future.

I also welcome the provisions contained in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12. There has always been a very good liaison between the profession and the authorities—this is relating to deeds registries—and it can only improve now that the situation is being formalized. This can only be to the benefit of more expeditious conveyancing procedures and also to the benefit of the profession and clients. The deeds registries, for as long as I have been dealing with, them, have always been hard pressed to get through an ever-growing volume of work. I think it is the proper time to say, during the Second Reading debate of this Bill, that notwithstanding that, the various officials of the deeds registries throughout the country have displayed in my view a very high degree of competency. I have found them extremely helpful and most courteous, particularly the people with whom I have dealt with on the Witwatersrand during 14 years of having had contact with that department. I agree entirely with the provisions of clause 12, viz. that notwithstanding any other provisions, the registrar shall not examine any provisions relating to a bond which are not relevant to the registration of the bond. It is the job of the attorney to tie up correctly the extraneous matters coming into deeds registry, those not directly related to the registration of the bond. It is not the job of the registrar to check the legality or otherwise of such extraneous provisions. This provision therefore ensures and requires greater watchfulness on the part of attorneys and conveyancers and lighten the burden of the registrar, justifiably so.

I do not wish to deal much further with the Bill, except to say that the Second Reading will not be opposed and that the other matters we want to raise, will be raised during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will not oppose the Second Reading. There are no objectionable clauses in this General Law Amendment Bill, or clauses which are of such a nature as to cause us to oppose the Second Reading, as I have had to do on many occasions in the past when a very objectionable clause or two were introduced in a General Law Amendment Bill. We should like the hon. the Minister of Justice to be here when clause 13 is discussed— I have no doubt that he will be here—because we have some questions to ask him. The hon. member for Parktown will ask him those questions. We should also like the hon. the Minister of Defence to be here so that we can put questions to him on clause 24. I personally, and this side in general, have no objection to clause 27, but if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will be present, we shall no doubt hear what the objections are of the official Opposition. Other than that we have no objection to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I am worried about the unanimity which prevails here this afternoon. Nevertheless I want to thank hon. members sincerely for taking such a favourable view of this Bill and for allowing it to go through so rapidly.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1956 and the General Loans Act of 1961 form the basis on which the financial administration of the Public Service is conducted, and in order to promote efficiency it is necessary for these two Acts to be consolidated. In addition, in the years since Union a number of separate sections comprising direct instructions to accounting officers and those dealing with public funds have been included in Finance Acts and financial Adjustment Acts. It is therefore desirable and necessary for these provisions, too, to be included in the consolidated act. In the course of time certain legal provisions, which at the time of their formulation had regulated matters of actual importance, became obsolete and superfluous, and they can now be removed from the Statute Book. Furthermore, time does not stand still, and in order to deal with administrative problems which occur as a result of present-day working conditions immediately they arise, certain customs and administrative arrangements have come into being since the mentioned Acts came into operation, which in practice make an effective contribution to efficient financial administration and ought therefore to be given statutory authority. Similarly there are a number of decisions by the Select Committee on Public Accounts which can now be included in the Act as express provisions.

Where new provisions are being created these comprise, for the most part, administrative measures to facilitate and streamline work. For example, in a number of clauses provision is made for the transfer of certain powers from the State President to the Minister of Finance. As explained in greater detail in the Explanatory Memorandum, the aim here is to promote administrative efficiency in State finances by the elimination of time-consuming or obsolete procedures, and there is no instance in which authority is being prejudiced. With the same object, viz. to save time and to ensure the proper utilization of staff, provision is also being made, for example, for the orderly delegation of powers vested in the Minister of Finance and the Treasury.

You will remember that in his budget speech of 14 August 1974, my predecessor announced that the Government had decided that as from the 1976’77 financial year a unitary budget would be introduced. As one of the first steps to be taken to give effect to this, provision is made in clauses 2(1) and 52(5) of the Bill for the consolidation of the existing Revenue Account and Loan Account into one account viz. the State Revenue Account. The public is not affected by the provisions of the proposed Bill, except that the provisions will result in the control of State funds in general being more stringent and will improve the administration of State finances, which will be indirectly to the public’s benefit.

Since hon. members have already had the opportunity of studying the legal aspects and proposed changes in the Bill in the explanatory memorandum, it is unnecessary for me to elaborate on them at greater length at this stage. However, if hon. members require further information concerning any clause of the Bill, I shall be happy to supply it.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, during the session, soma of the more innocent-looking measures that had been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance can lead to unexpected controversy. We remember the Land Bank Bill, for instance, which raised the temperature of this House considerably. Also this Bill in front of us, innocent though it looks, is not going to have the easy passage that might have been expected. Before I come to discuss the contents of this Bill, I should like to express appreciation to the Minister and his department for the very comprehensive explanatory memorandum which was provided for us some days ago. This memorandum has made the task of studying the Bill and understanding its contents very much easier for us.

I now come to the actual aspects of this Bill. As we on this side of the House see it, there are two aspects of the measure that we would like to discuss. The first is that this Bill is primarily a consolidating measure. It consolidates some of the existing legislation which affects the procedures followed by the Treasury and the Exchequer. It also consolidates procedures in regard to Audit. It defines some of the Exchequer and Audit procedures which are not included in existing legislation but which are in use already and have been in use for some time. It also extends the powers of the Treasury, the Minister of Finance and also the Auditor-General in certain respects. As far as we are concerned, that is an aspect of this legislation which we are able to support. The other aspect of this legislation is that it provides the mechanism for the introduction of a unitary budgeting system with effect from the 1976’77 financial year.

I should like to deal with the first aspect of this legislation first, namely the consolidating, defining and widening of functions. Firstly, this Bill takes the financial control functions out of the hands of the State President and the Auditor-General, who exercised these functions in the past, and places them in the hands of the Minister of Finance or the Treasury. That is a step we can support. These control functions, which have been exercised by the State President and the Auditor-General, have in fact been nominal control functions. As far as I can see, they have had no really effective purpose. They cannot prevent unauthorized expenditure or misappropriation of funds. They have, in fact, made the procedure of issuing funds which have already been appropriated and approved by Parliament under Appropriation Bills, clumsy and somewhat long-winded. I believe that as is envisaged in the Bill, the best authority for issuing and controlling the issue of funds is the Treasury. Since that is what the Bill does, we can certainly support it in that respect.

I would like to say that as a corollary to taking away the control function of the Auditor-General, I think it is necessary, as this Bill does, to place more emphasis on the auditing function of the Auditor-General The best way in which to prevent the misappropriation and the misuse of funds is to ensure that the audit is a good, thorough and up-to-date one and that the funds are used efficiently and to the best advantage. I am therefore pleased to see that this Bill defines the scope of the duties of the Auditor-General in much more detail than they are defined in the existing legislation. It defines the Auditor-General’s responsibilities and it widens the scope of these responsibilities in certain respects. In particular I welcome the power which is given to the Auditor-General to investigate the efficiency of the manner in which funds are used by State departments. To my mind this Bill does to some extent change the nature of the position of the Auditor-General from being purely an auditor to being an auditor and to some extent an ombudsman, and my views in regard to ombudsmen and the desirability of appointing an ombudsman in this country are well-known. I am, however, disturbed by the provisions of clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill, which allow the Treasury and departments of State longer periods in which to prepare their financial statements than are allowed at present. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is only by the expeditious and timely preparation of accounts and by the expeditious and timely auditing of accounts that malpractices can be timeously detected. The modern practice in the business world is to shorten the period between the end of a financial year and the time of reporting, and this is facilitated by the modern tools that are available to accountants, tools such as computers. I believe that this is something that the State itself should aim at. The Companies Act that was passed in 1973 provides that public companies must report within reasonably short periods after the end of their financial years, and I believe that this is an example that the State must follow itself. I believe that it is a very retrogressive step to take to lengthen the period which is allowed between the end of a financial year and the time when statements must be completed as far as the Treasury and State departments are concerned. I think that the hon. the Minister is merely taking the easy way out of a practical difficulty.

Another feature of the consolidating aspect of this legislation which I should like to touch on is the manner in which it is proposed that the Auditor-General should be appointed. The Bill provides that the Auditor-General should be appointed by the State President. The Auditor-General’s duty is to report to Parliament on the accounts and the finances of the country, and for that reason I believe that it is important that the appointment of this official should be a parliamentary appointment, that his term of office should be determined by Parliament and that it should be Parliament’s prerogative to terminate his tenure of office, should that be necessary. I come back to the thought that this legislation is making more and more of an ombudsman of the Auditor-General, and as an ombudsman he should be a parliamentary appointment and not be appointed by the State President. That, of course, would apply also to his duties in regard to auditing.

Other provisions in regard to the first aspect of this Bill which I would like to comment on, are those contained in clauses 6 and 7, whereby the Minister is given authority to allow unspent balances of column 2 items to be used for other purposes. This is a provision that we on this side of the House do not like. Column 2 expense items are specifically approved by Parliament for specific purposes. They are mainly approved as grants-in-aid for particular institutions or organizations. I believe that as they have been approved by Parliament for those specific purposes, it should not be the Minister who should have the authority to use unspent balances for other purposes. The matter should be approved by Parliament.

The other powers given to the hon. the Minister of Finance or the Treasury, as the case may be, are more clearly defined in this Bill than they have been defined in the past and they have our support. In reaching this conclusion I have in mind that except for the matter which I have raised in regard to column 2 items of expenditure, and except in so far as this legislation gives the Minister the power to guarantee certain loans by the S.A. Reserve Bank which previously would have required specific parliamentary approval, we find this part of the legislation acceptable because the power of Parliament to exercise control over the taxpayers’ money and the expenditure of it is not, except in these instances, being usurped or diminished. In my view that is a very important requirement of Parliament because it is one of the two main functions of Parliament, namely its legislative function and its function to control the expenditure of the taxpayers’ money.

So much for the first aspect of this legislation where, except for the points I have mentioned, we have no problems and are therefore able to support the Bill in that respect. I now come to the second aspect of the Bill, namely the introduction of the unitary budgeting system. Here we have an aspect of this measure which we cannot support. I should like to state that in my opinion the time has never been less ripe in South Africa for the introduction of a unitary budgeting system than it is at the present time. I shall motivate that statement in a moment or two. Let us be quite clear exactly what a unitary budgeting system means. It means that the distinction between current or revenue expenditure and expenditure on capital works disappears or at best is only noted for information in the Estimates of Expenditure. What is more important is that the co-relation between the different types of expenditure—capital and revenue—and the distinct traditional methods of financing them also disappears. The revenue expenditure is traditionally financed from taxation and capital expenditure is from loan funds. The purpose behind this proposal which has been suggested in debates in the past, was clearly stated in paragraph 174 of the Third Report of the Franzsen Commission. I think it is as well for the House to refresh its memory on what that recommendation had to say in this regard. I will quote what I consider to be the relevant passage—

I think that it is extremely dangerous and misleading to compare the positions of highly industrialized countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America with developing countries such as South Africa. The United Kingdom and the United States of America, as developed countries, have relatively fully developed public sector infrastructures covering such items as transport, harbours, communications, telecommunications and so forth. The public sector’s capital works programme therefore represents a far smaller percentage of the gross national product and a far smaller percentage of the tax base than is the case in a developing country such as ours. The burden on the taxpayer for financing capital works out of revenue in those countries is therefore a much lighter one. I would also like to state in parenthesis that I think it is also dangerous to draw comparisons between our country and the position in the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom as much as a third of the gross national product is spent by the State. In our country this figure is only one-quarter. I would not like to think of our trying to copy what is being done in the United Kingdom. The position in South Africa is completely different from the position in the countries that have been mentioned. We are a developing country with enormous scope for further development, and let me say that I know of no other country in the world that is at the same stage of development as our own country which has adopted the unitary budgeting system. We need huge amounts to be spent on public sector infrastructure, on capital works such as railways and harbours and, in particular, housing. To place any meaningful reliance on revenue from taxation to provide for this development, would impose an enormous additional burden on the taxpayer. This would be the logical effect of introducing a unitary budgeting system. Otherwise I can see no real meaningful reason why we should have it. We already know how the motorist is having to pay through the nose to finance the capital cost of Sasol 2 by way of a two cent per liter increase in the price of petrol. We also know how much the telephone subscriber has to pay by way of increased telephone charges in order to finance telecommunications capital expansion for the future. This all adds to the burden of inflation when the position desperately calls not for increased taxation but for a reduction in tax to relieve the inflationary pressure. Our belief on this side of the House is that current expenditure should be financed from current revenue, i.e. basically from taxation, and that capital expenditure should be financed from savings, i.e. basically from loans whether those loans be domestic loans or foreign loans. This is sound accounting practice. It is sound to differentiate between current revenue and expenditure on the one hand and capital expenditure and capital receipts on the other. I am quite sure that none of the hon. Minister’s receivers of revenue would allow the two to get mixed up in his tax returns or would allow capital to be treated as revenue and written off against tax liabilities. Certainly the income tax law, which is another responsibility of this Minister, does not allow for the merging of the two types of expenditure in that way. We also believe that it is sound economic practice to finance capital expenditure through Loan Account and, in doing so, to share the cost of capital works with future generations who will use these capital works. As long as loans are raised from savings and not through the creation of additional credit, loan financing is not inflationary, in fact it is non-inflationary. We on this side of the House believe that it is also quite practical to finance our capital works from loans which are to be raised. There may be times when it will be difficult to raise loan capital, but our country’s experience over the long term has been that the required capital can be raised. One must always bear in mind when it comes to the raising of capital and the raising of loans by the State, that the State is in a preferred position with its statutory call on institutional savings. This, to my mind, is an additional argument against using the unitary budgetary system to force people to save through taxation in order to finance capital expenditure. When I say this, it does not mean that we on this side of the House believe that the hon. the Minister’s hands should be tied inflexibly. Within limits he must have the power to regulate the tempo of the economy, to increase capital expenditure at times when the economy is slack and, vice versa, to decrease capital expenditure when the economy is active. He may also resort, although within limits, to surplus or deficit financing on Revenue Account as the situation warrants. To do so, does not require the introduction of a unitary budgetary system. Because we believe that this system is inevitably going to lead to a higher burden of tax on the people, we refuse to be associated with such a move. I therefore wish to move an amendment to the hon. the Minister’s proposal that the Bill be read a Second Time, viz—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has put the comment of his party under two broad headings. One is the consolidating measures and the other one is in regard to the introduction of the unitary budgetary system. The hon. member laid a great deal of emphasis on the fact that capital expenditure should in all cases—I that was the general thrust of his argument—be financed by the raising of loans and not from Revenue Account, and that all current expenditure should be financed from current revenue. Quite frankly, we on these benches find it extremely difficult to see the necessity for this sort of absolutely fixed distinction in the form of financing. Say, for instance that the wage earner of a normal household wishes to purchase a motorcar. He can choose either to finance the purchase of the motor-car out of his earnings or he can choose to finance it by the sale of shares. It makes little difference to the household as to which method of financing the man chooses. Therefore, coming back to the subject of the unitary budgetary system, we cannot see the necessity for splitting into categories the form of revenue which the Government should use to finance its current expenditure.