Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have come now to the end of a long road in respect of this Bill, a road which started when the hon. the Minister introduced a one-clause Bill, that is to say, clause 1 of the Bill as it now is, which related to accredited diplomats and foreign visitors and provided that they would not in any way be affected by those aspects of the Act which differentiated, so far as accommodation was concerned, between Whites and non-Whites. Then, Sir, in the Select Committee his department submitted a Bill to deal with other persons, namely non-Whites —Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—living within the borders of South Africa. Sir, at the time we discussed this matter in the Select Committee and we heard evidence from, amongst other sources, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and in the result the present Bill was submitted by the majority, whereas we submitted an alternative one-clause Bill which we believed and still believe could in fact have cleared up all the difficulties, could have met the difficulties of the Department of Foreign Affairs and would have provided a far more flexible and solid basis on which to conduct affairs relating to accommodation and meals that Whites and Blacks may have to enjoy in the same places than the present Bill does. Sir, what we proposed was just one clause to deal with the whole of the rigmarole that is now in this Bill…

To open it up.

… and which read—

That was not accepted by the majority of the Select Committee, and we therefore proceeded with this Bill. The Bill was improved in the Committee Stage in two respects by amendments from the hon. members for Potgietersrus and Waterkloof. As I have indicated, Sir, those amendments arose purely from the objections which we, the official Opposition, had in fact raised to the contents of the Bill.

You are bluffing yourself.

That is the truth. Sir, that hon. gentleman was a member of the Select Committee. He did not raise these objections; we raised the objections as a result of which those amendments were moved by those hon. members. Those are the facts of the matter.

Never.

The hon. the Minister himself has indicated that he was rather pleased that they had come from that side of the House and not from this side of the House, but the objections to the contents of the Bill came from this side of the House. However, Sir, that is of minor importance. One of those amendments relating to a new permit system, a permit system which was originally put before the Select Committee by the hon. the Minister’s department and then rejected, has now been re-introduced, and I want to say that while this Bill certainly meets a situation which the Bill did not meet before, it is nevertheless going to make for all sorts of delays in trying to get ministerial permission for the odd occasion which one cannot foresee, say, a week or two ahead. The experience that we have had in the past in getting ministerial permission in regard to such matters does not bode very well for the implementation of this measure.

That is a misstatement.

But the evidence that the Select Committee received was that there were all sorts of departments involved and there were all sorts of delays; that there were an awful lot of applications that had to be attended to and that as the number of applications kept building up and there were delays. That is the evidence the Select Committee received, that this was one of the difficulties of the present system and one of the reasons advanced as to why a Bill was necessary. In that regard we were all at one. When that question was put to the Select Committee, as to whether or not legislation was necessary, we were all at one that legislation was necessary and the evidence which I have just mentioned, was one of the compelling reasons why in fact legislation was necessary.

Now, the Bill as it stands is based just on considerations of race discrimination and nothing else. That is why the Department of Foreign Affairs wanted the Select Committee to move away from separately marked hotels and place the law on a discretionary basis, a discretion which each hotelier would have. During the Second Reading debate, hon. members waxed lyrical about what would happen, and how all the hotels would be open and flooded by Blacks. That is absolute nonsense, as I said in the Committee Stage. In the days before we had the Group Areas Act, the private sector providing public amenities in various forms did not have any laws compelling them only to have Whites or only to have Blacks, but nevertheless that was the pattern. As I indicated, if you went to a cinema in Cape Town or Johannesburg or Durban what you found was that the main cinemas in those areas had, in fact, only a White clientele, not because the law said so but because they were running a business. The business they were running was that of a cinema and they knew what the local population would accept and they knew what their clientele would accept. But by the same token, in other areas where there was a necessity and the local population would, in fact, accept a sharing of those facilities in various ways, one upstairs and one downstairs, or however they wanted to do it, it was done.

And you still want it done like that, separately?

It ought to be in the discretion of the person providing the facility. That is how it worked all these years. It is not that the South African nation has changed because this Government came into power.

Another aspect of this Bill is that despite the two amendments the Bill still removes existing rights, and the Minister’s argument that this is not so is in direct conflict with the opinion of the State law advisers as given to the Select Committee. The arguments that the rights were not generally known and that, therefore, it does not matter whether you remove them or not, is no argument at all. This is like saying that minors and women have certain legal rights which are not generally known to them and therefore you can take them away because they did not really know about them, or did not generally use them.

In many ways this Bill is a retrograde step. Section 81(1) now provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, it shall be a special condition of an on-consumption licence issued in respect of premises intended for occupation by or the convenience of Europeans or Europeans and persons who are not Europeans, that the holder thereof shall not on the licensed-premises sell or supply to any person who is not a European any refreshments, meals or accommodation or any liquor. In the days of yore when the policy of this Government was to discriminate, even then the Group Areas Act specifically provided that its provisions should not apply to bona fide guests in a hotel. But now we come to a time when the Government’s policy, certainly vis-à-vis overseas, is to eliminate discrimination. We now find the Government removing the rights which the Group Areas Act specifically entrenched. This right is now to be exercised by certain hotels as specified by the hon. the Minister and subject to certain ministerial discretions in respect of persons and other places. The hon. the Minister’s attitude is perhaps as depicted in a newspaper interview, and the hon. the Minister should correct me if this is wrong. His attitude was that facilities would be provided. That international hotels would be provided for South African Blacks only where there were no facilities for Blacks in the area. I presume that the corollary is also true, namely that the hon. the Minister’s attitude is that if there are such facilities, he will not make provision for such hotels where all races can go.

I said: “Wherever there was a need.”

That is right, but what I would like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether he concedes that there is a need in the metropolitan as well as in other areas for Whites and Blacks to have lunch together occasionally and to have meetings together occasionally. Does the hon. the Minister concede that that is so?

Yes.

If the hon. the Minister concedes that that is so, then that is a major concession. If the hon. the Minister concedes that that is so…

I said that in my speech.

If the hon. the Minister concedes that that is so his attitude should be rather different. What is his attitude then to be if that is his approach? What is his attitude going to be in respect of applications for permits? I think we would like to hear the hon. the Minister on this. What sort of circumstances does the hon. the Minister have in mind where he will, for example, allow a mixed luncheon, or gathering which, in the nature of things, can in most cases only be held where such facilities are provided, namely a licensed premises as the hotel with licences are the hotels that provide reasonable amenities.

Although this is called the Liquor Bill, I think it is conceded by everyone that liquor is the least important part of it and, indeed, the hon. the Minister’s own department said just that in its memorandum, namely that the supply of liquor, especially to non-Whites in hotels intended for occupation by Whites, was of minor importance because today liquor could be supplied to all race groups in our country. This means that we are dealing with a matter of great national importance, namely the provision of facilities for the meeting and dialogue between people of different races. Unfortunately the Bill in its present form is also typical of the attitude of the Nationalist Government, the attitude that everything should be controlled by means of ministerial power, an attitude of not trusting the good sense of the persons who will have to run the establishments which will provide these public facilities.

I do not want to go any further into the arguments used in the Committee Stage, but I would still like to refer to the fact that South Africa has a very conservative but very sensible population when it comes to matters such as social contact. Social patterns develop and they will change as the race groups develop socially and economically. What should be provided is a climate within which it can develop. But this Bill does not provide this; it provides a climate where it not only cannot develop, but where it is constricted by the very nature of the provisions contained in this Bill. So, this Bill does not meet the existing exigencies and it certainly will not meet the exigencies of the developing situation in South Africa. As the Bill is unchanged in principle from What it was during the Second Reading, we cannot support the Bill at the Third Reading either.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North, who has just sat down, has again referred to the Bill proposed by himself to the Select Committee, the contents of which were turned down by that committee. The hon. member in his Bill proposed the substitution of section 7 of the Liquor Act, 1928 by the following section—

I would like to know from the hon. member for Durban North whether it was his intention that the section which he proposed, would supersede section 113 of the Liquor Act as it stands at the moment, because the two do not seem to reconcile with each other. Section 113 is very explicit and does not give the hotelier the right to refuse any person.

The answer is “Yes, of course.”

The hon. member then takes the words “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act” to mean that the hotelier will have the exclusive right to refuse any applicant accommodation. I am correct in saying that that is the conclusion to which the hon. member has come.

†If I understand the hon. member for Durban North correctly, it means that the Bill he submitted to the Select Committee, aims at giving an hotelier the right to refuse accommodation to a person—whether White. Black or Coloured—who asks for it. That is precisely the matter which was put to a witness before the Select Committee. From the report of the Select Committee I quote from page 27, question No. 129, which was asked by the hon. member for Jeppe:

This right which the hon. member wants to give to hoteliers, is precisely a right which is going to create uncertainty in providing accommodation to the non-White population of South Africa, for he is not sure, when he knocks at the front door of an hotel, whether he will be accepted by the hotelier concerned. The system which was accepted by the majority of the members of the Select Committee and which was incorporated in the legislation which is now being considered, is a system with a built-in certainty and clarity, so that everyone in this country will know, when he arrives at an International hotel, that he will be able to enjoy the amenities of that hotel. The mistake which hon. members of the Opposition are making is to shift the responsibility for legal certainty on to the conscience of the hotel owners in this country. They want to shift the responsibility to decide whether or not a man should be accepted in an hotel, that certainty which has to exist to prevent incidents, on to the shoulders of hotelowners, who are not prepared, according to the evidence given, to accept that responsibility.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. My Whip gave me only 14 minutes in which to make my speech. The situation is, therefore, that if we accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban North, guests will have no certainty whether or not they will be accepted at certain hotels. According to the system which the Government and the majority of the members of the committee accepted, there will, on the other hand, be clearly identified hotels in every major city, in every major metropolitan area where guests will feel themselves as likely to ask for accommodation in the knowledge that they will be accented there, whatever the colour of their skin may be. According to the system which was explained here by the hon. the Minister and other sneakers during previous debates, there will be a series of international hotels along our main routes. It will therefore be possible for a tourist to travel along these roads without any doubt as to whether or not he will be welcome at a particular hotel. Only on the basis of this concept of certainty and the elimination of friction which goes with it, I suggest that the proposals which the Government side submitted to the House, are far better than those which were suggested to the Select Committee by the hon. member for Durban North.

The hon. member for Durban North, however, also loses sight of the evidence which served before us. The evidence indicated that prior to 1967, that is before licensing conditions were imposed, there were certain hotels in the Cape which were able to accommodate Coloureds; and how did they accommodate those Coloureds? They were accommodated separately in canteens where they could obtain liquor. They were, therefore, able only to enjoy second-rate amenities in the particular hotels. That was the way in which hoteliers were prepared in the past to accommodate and treat people of a different colour in this country. We are not prepared to take this risk or follow the same road we have followed in the Cape Province when the Coloured population was accommodated in hotels by means of second-rate amenities. Their money was good enough in the canteens, but not good enough in the dining-rooms. This is this kind of abuse we want to prevent by creating a proper licensing system. The hotelowners who were prepared to accept the responsibility, is now in a position to apply for a proper licence. It will also be possible to exercise control in terms of the licensing conditions and the powers vested in the National Liquor Licence Board.

The hon. member complained because the hon. the Minister said that the hotels in Natal would be inundated by Indians. The hon. member for Durban North also complained about that. In the Cape Province we had the position that when money could be made from a situation, money was indeed made. There is no doubt about that. When money can be made, even if it is only by opening the door a little to the public instead of making the entire hotel available to them, it will be done in that way. We are therefore not prepared to run the risk and allow the hotelowners to decide about this matter alone. We are not prepared to allow abuses and second-rate amenities to be created in respect of the Coloured, Indian and Black population of South Africa. When hotels are made available for these population groups in South Africa, we want them to receive the same treatment there that we want the Whites of South Africa to have.

Now I want to say that the hon. member, as is indeed the case with his entire party, is still living in the old colonial atmosphere and times we experienced in South Africa before the Second World War. After all, they stopped thinking at the start of the Second World War. The hon.member still argues that because, without the Group Areas Act, people did not offend one another by not visiting one other’s hotels, cinemas and amenities, this will continue to be the case in future, the same as in the past. The hon. member forgets that circumstances in the world have changed. We are no longer living in colonial times where the colonial system was a repressive system which kept people apart. Today we are living in different times, times which demand that the human dignity of all groups in South Africa should be acknowledged. It is in terms of the new times in which we are living and in terms of the new needs which have arisen in South Africa for the White and the Coloured population, that amenities have to be established in South Africa. Unfortunately it is a fact —I think it was Mr. Le Roux, chairman of the National Liquor Board who said so in his evidence before the Select Committee—that when the 1928 Liquor Act was drafted and piloted through this House, it was never borne in mind that the non-Whites in South Africa had to be accommodated as well.

They only allowed one population group there.

The 1928 Liquor Act only related to the amenities which were for the White sector of South Africa and which had to be created afterwards. When the principal Act was approved originally, they did not even bear in mind that the non-Whites had to be accommodated as well. Because of the situation which applied until shortly after the Second World War, the amenities which were created were for the most part geared for Whites. Because of this situation there are at present 1 200 hotels, or whatever the number may be, in this country which are only equipped for Whites. It was only after the National Party came along with its concept of separate development, separate freedoms, and the promotion of the interests of the other race groups, that we had the principle that the other race groups should also get their own hotels in which they can be accommodated. It was only after the Second World War when this new dispensation got under way. It was correctly mentioned here that we have a certain amount of hotels—I am not going to quote the figures I have here in front of me—for Coloureds, Bantu and Indians, but that they are insufficient to meet the needs of the non-White population of South Africa. It is obvious that there are not hotels for non-Whites on all the tourist routes. Until such amenities are provided we have to see to it that certain amenities are created for them within the White amenities. That is the purpose of the legislation we have before us.

The other very positive recommendation we had from the Select Committee was that everything should be done now and in the immediate future to see to it that the non-White community itself will create amenities for their own community. This is a very positive aspect of this matter. Not only do we have to find the funds to do so; better training facilities have to be created for these people as well. More opportunities have to be created, even within the framework of White hotels, for the proper training of people. I believe this has to be done on the managerial level, and I further believe that there must be some encouragement for the hotels which have already been established by non-Whites for non-Whites in terms of section 110sex of the Liquor Act—this is where partnerships of 20 could obtain liquor licences by means of tax encouragements or something of that nature to expand the facilities they have already established into proper accommodation and hotel facilities. One hears that these people are doing well financially, one hears that they buy big and expensive motor-cars and that they go on overseas journeys. One would like to see that those people be persuaded in one way or another to use the money they make in this way, to establish better facilities for their own communities by expanding these hotels referred to in section 100sex of the principal Act, to become hotels in the true sense of the word.

In the circumstances, I think, we are dealing here with a step which proceeds from here in a disciplined way on the road of establishing amenities for the non-White populations. We remove any uncertainty which may exist. I think the result of this Bill will be that everybody will know what their position is with regard to this matter. At the same time I believe that we shall stimulate the necessary driving force by means of this legislation and otherwise, to see to it that the Coloured, Bantu and Indian communities will in future provide their own hotels in a proper manner.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Belleville has tried to oversimplify this issue from his party’s point of view. He really came up with nothing to support the attitude of the hon. the Minister to this Bill and he had nothing to present which could conflict with the very sound and valid point of view expressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Let us look at the history of how this Bill came to Parliament in the first place. The report makes it clear that the Department of Justice was concerned about the ever-increasing number of applications that were being received to extend facilities in respect of the provision of liquor including on-consumption facilities, and the provision of accommodation together with liquor. Not only was the department concerned with this ever-increasing number of applications, but it was also aware of the awkward method which had to be employed to bring this state of affairs about. The method which was current at the time, was an ultra vires method. Therefore it was felt necessary to amend the law in some way. The matter was dealt with by a Cabinet committee before whom a report was laid. That report was then referred back to all the various departments concerned. The departments connected with Indian affairs, Coloured affairs and Bantu affairs were involved. The Group Areas Act also had to be taken into account. There were so many departments involved that the matter was referred back to them. Finally a report was prepared which is virtually the report we have before us today and which appeared before the Select Committee. Therefore the hon. the Minister was well aware of the problems facing the country and the difficulties that were arising in this respect. It was not a question of interfering with the accommodation that was available at that stage or of bringing that situation to an end, but of bringing into being a combination of the provision of accommodation and of liquor.

However, there was another fear which was also expressed in the report, which I think followed Government policy. I refer to the problem that arose as they began to dig deeper into the matter, viz. the problem that integration could be the result of the ever-increasing number of applications that were being approved. So a means had to be found to limit what the Government considered a danger to them, viz. the danger of integration. As this pattern has developed over the years, no such fear or problem existed. There were no unpleasant incidents experienced in the country in so far as friction was concerned. There were other problems which arose out of this and these problems did cause concern. I refer to the problems with regard to visitors to this country. So one finds that the Select Committee’s report deals with the matter in three phases. Firstly there is the point of view of the department which tried to establish a larger number of what it called international or open hotels and to enable more and more local Bantu and other non-Whites of all races, Black, Indian and Coloured, to be accommodated in these hotels on a permit system. However, no one felt that they had to stop providing these facilities; rather, they felt that, if possible, these facilities should be regulated by law so that there would be no possibility of permits being issued ultra vires. That was the one aspect dealt with by the Select Committee, an aspect linked with the approach of the Department of Justice and supported by the chairman of the National Liquor Board who had a lot of experience in this connection. There was no question of limitation and no question of the specific narrowing of facilities. There was rather a desire to validate the method of doing it and to maintain and possibly expand the system to meet the demand. That was the purpose of the first phase of the evidence before the Select Committee. With regard to Fedhasa itself, which was the second phase, they bound themselves to the Hotel Board’s report, for the reason that they are part and parcel of that machinery. One might say that they are a satellite, a subsidiary body of the Hotel Board. The Hotel Board is the overall controlling board regarding the standards and the facilities which these hotels can provide. So, they were in close liaison with the Hotel Board and were not prepared to conflict with them.

That was not the argument of the hon. member for East London City.

Just a moment. In the report of the Hotel Board, provision was also made for this question of permits. The Hotel Board did not run away from the problem that was facing them, namely to provide for the local Black person; and by “Black” I include all the different races which are not of the White race. Provision was made for this, because the Hotel Board recognized that this was a necessity in the affairs of the country. They also allied themselves with the permit system, which was very severely criticized in some respects by the department itself. Nevertheless, they allied themselves with it and so Fedhasa in its evidence, whilst it was cautious about the suggestion that was made, namely to throw ail hotels open, was prepared to adhere to a principle which permitted an expansion of what was called the permit system to enable people to be accommodated, because the demand was growing.

Then our attention was diverted to a further phase, which was a much more important and vital phase, namely the question of public relations in South Africa itself vis-à-vis foreigners who were coming to the country, their relationship with Whites and their relationship in our country with the Black people as well, people whom they might want to invite as guests to hotels themselves. Certain problems then arose. Arising out of that, we got some very interesting information. For instance, the hon. member for Bellville said that if hoteliers had the right to use their own discretion in deciding which hotels they would like to open to all races, it would lead to confusion in the minds of the public. That is not the point of view of Mr. Fourie of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who on page 57, in reply to question 291, said something very interesting. Mr. Mitchell asked this question—

And then another point of view was given on page 58, in reply to question 299, where Mr. F. W. de Klerk asked—

Mr. Fourie replied as follows—

In other words, as it becomes known that certain hoteliers have used their discretionary right to open their hotels to all races—and the normal pattern of events is that this sort of thing becomes known very quickly—people in the various cities and towns and villages will know which hotels are open to them. Sir, this could not lead to conflict; it would not lead to any scenes or incidents. This information would spread very quickly and it would soon be general knowledge which hotels are open to all races. We find the same thing happening today in the coastal towns. According to the evidence given to us, sailors are using certain hotels in the coastal towns simply because it has become known that those hotels will serve them without their necessarily carrying passports.

That is an ancient repast.

Sir, these are the actual facts. The fact that these hotels are open to all races will soon become known throughout the country, just as any other business becomes known through what it stands for to the public that it has to serve. I think there is no ground whatsoever for this fear that what we advocate will give rise to confusion. I think it is a lot of nonsense. Sir, the hon. member for Bellville said. “We want to ensure that there are hotels that will serve the community; we do not want the problem in this country that nobody will know which hotel is for which people.” What is going to happen if no hotelier makes application for permission to open his hotel to all races? Is the department going to establish open hotels? Is the Minister going to establish open hotels; is the Hotel Board going to establish open hotels? Hon. members on that side are assuming that hoteliers will in fact make application to be recognized as open hotels. We agree that they will make application because that would be the natural thing for an entrepreneur who wishes to serve the community, but I think that the excuse given by the Government for imposing this control is a very poor one. The excuse is that if they do not exercise control, the whole thing will become chaotic. We think that this whole concept of State control in this matter is very retrogressive. Sir, what do we find here? The Government takes an important step forward; then it finds that it has to put this whole thing on to a proper, orderly basis, but it is afraid to do so because in doing so it may create the impression that it is prepared to make more concessions, so it takes retrogressive step and then it remedies the situation by doing exactly what the hon. the Minister did not think of doing when he first presented the Bill, and that is to introduce a permit system in terms of which he can use his own discretion to give certain rights to hoteliers, and he introduces the permit system because he knows that it is going to be absolutely necessary to grant permits. Sir, in fact the department went further than the hon. the Minister. The department actually included the persons to be exempted in the first clause. It gave them the right to enter any hotel in the country, just as it gave that right to foreign diplomats. The hon. the Minister is now reverting right back to where he was originally. All he is doing is to try to legalize what he was doing illegally before, but he is legalizing it in a manner which, because of the very fact that it is now embodied in legislation, is going to give greater cause for unhappiness and greater cause for a deterioration in race relations and in public relations. I say, therefore, that this is a retrogressive step. I can point to many other issues. For instance, let me give you another point of view, Sir, expressed by the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs which is very apt here. In answer to a question, he said—

Then he goes further and says something which has been left out of the Bill, namely the question of the American Negro. He says—

Will the hon. the Minister explain why there is no reference to that in the Bill? Perhaps I have missed the point, but I would like the hon. the Minister to explain why there has not been a repeal of section 175.

Read Clause 1.

Then let me just deal with one other aspect which the hon. member for Bellville raised. The hon. member for Bellville criticized us in regard to section 113. He took up the argument of his colleague sitting next to him that we were not prepared to repeal section 113. I do not think I need to explain this to the hon. the Minister, who is a very good lawyer himself. [Interjections.] It says “not-withstanding anything to the contrary in this Act”. I suppose the hon. the Minister follows that clearly. That makes it completely unnecessary, for the edification of the hon. member for Bellville, to repeal any other section because that is self-explanatory, and that deals with that particular issue.

I just want to say further that on general grounds we maintain that the sensible approach to this matter would have been—and I am afraid that the hon. the Minister is going to find himself in the same difficulty as he has been in the past—to raise the entire level of this particular industry, to raise the entire level of the thinking of our people in this country, and to raise the entire level of public relations in our country, by providing a system in this particular field, allied as it is to many other industries in the country, and dependent as it is on many other industries in the country, whereby the question of serving anyone could be left to the discretion of the entrepreneur himself. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us how any conflict could result. This is what we want from him; a positive and clear statement, justifying the assertion of some of his supporters on those benches, as to how it will bring about conflict if hoteliers use their discretion in deciding which hotels they want to open to all people in the country and which not; how the industry would suffer, how the public would suffer and how the tourists would suffer. Furthermore, he must explain to us how he is going to accommodate those numerous persons that we dealt with during the Second Reading debate, people who move around the country in such large numbers. If the hon. the Minister is going to resort to giving permits by means of telephone calls to the department which will have officers available day and night for such purpose, let him tell us that. Let him tell us that he is going back to the system which he had before. [Interjection.] The Minister did not say much about that. He interrupted just now in response to a point raised by my hon. friend, the member for Johannesburg North. If he has gone back to the old system, and if he has gone back to what it was before, he must say so, but we do not understand it that way.

You were asleep.

We think it is a retrogressive step and on those grounds we cannot support this Bill, because in principle this Bill strikes against the very factors which are much more important in South African race relations today than most other factors.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe dealt extensively with the question of this particular sign at hotels. He expressed his misgivings about it and asked if it would not lead to indignation on the part of foreign visitors. This Bill serving before us makes provision for foreign visitors to visit any hotel in this country. This argument of the hon. member for Jeppe does not hold water. He says that people in a certain area will become used to having a certain hotel which accommodates non-White people as well. But, Sir, what of the travelling public? If I go on a trip and come into a town, how should I know which hotel accommodates which people? Surely it is impossible for me to establish that in the middle of the night. There is also a further aspect involved here. One also finds those White people who would like to stay in an hotel where provision is only made for White accommodation. Therefore it is important that we also see to the interests of the White person who lives in South Africa, so that he can also see where he is going to. Finally, if there is no sign, the owner can decide arbitrarily—’that is, in fact, what the hon. member for Jeppe and the official Opposition are advocating—who he wants to admit and when he will admit him. In such a case, one will find that the hoteliers will admit people on one day, and not admit them on the next. In other words, Sir, a chaotic condition will be created in respect of administration. There will be no order in the case of hotel accommodation.

The hon. member for Jeppe went further and accused the Government of wanting to control hotel accommodation with this Bill, when it comes to the different race and population groups. Sir, that is precisely the case. My accusation against the official Opposition and also against the Progressive Party is that they do not want to control hotel accommodation. In other words, they are heading for a discriminatory integration within hotels. They want to throw open all hotels without any qualification, without consideration of the needs, without consideration of the facilities which exist, without consideration of the local circumstances, without consideration of South Africa’s traditional policy of co-existence in respect of the different race groups in this country, and without consideration of possible White resistance which will necessarily arise in certain situations and in certain places in this country. In this whole process, the official Opposition creates two highly explosive situations, which must necessarily lead to racial friction or to discrimination. In the first place, they want to give every individual hotel owner the right to allow whom he wants and to allow him when he wants, on an ad hoc basis so that those people can use any facilities. That is the very argument which the hon. member for Jeppe used. He said he cannot see why it cannot be allowed, and he asked why it cannot be left to the hotelier to take these decisions on an ad hoc basis. I am asking: Where is the chaos to end if each owner can decide who he is going to admit, when he is going to admit him, and to which part of his hotel he is going to admit him? If we continue at all with, this idea of the hon. member for Jeppe, which has been mentioned repeatedly by other hon. members, we must necessarily head for a situation which is going to cause tremendous friction. In the second place, simply throwing hotels open will lead to their being inundated by non-White people, and that is directly in conflict with the traditional way of life of orderly separation, which is maintained between the race groups in this country. Now it is interesting that when the Progressive Party, as they have done so often, came along with a new policy at the time of their proposed marriage, the hon. member for Durban Point had the following to say about the Progressive-Reformist policy (translation)—

Precisely the same thing is going to take place if one applies this to hotels. In this very same report, the hon. member for Durban Point expresses his fear about the so-called franchise of the illiterate. That is the very issue at stake, viz. when these illiterates begin to inundate these hotels and when this infringes on the traditional way of life in South Africa and there must necessarily be a disturbance of the calm and peaceful way of life in South Africa. Therefore this Government comes along, after it has been in office for 27 years and after it has obtained a larger mandate seven consecutive times to apply this policy and to follow a pattern of parallel and separate development, to try to bring about the maintenance of identity in a humane way, where it is practically possible and in the interests of the good order by the establishment of separate equal facilities and facilities for the different population groups. Therefore, we shall continue to establish hotels for the separate population groups and expand the existing facilities, on the quickest possible basis and with the greatest possible speed. Where it is not practicable to make similar separate facilities available for the separate population groups, we must be prepared to make provision, in an orderly way, for the other groups of colour, just as we do in the case of the Boeings, just as we do in the case of the Nico Malan and just as we do with representative sport teams. We must also apply the very same policy with reference to hotels. In this way, I believe, facilities will be created in such a way that the races will be able to share the facilities in an orderly and peaceful way and hoteliers will not need to refuse a guest admission in a humiliating and an insulting way. In addition, each one reserves for himself the right to decide to which hotel he wants to go. In the same way, the hotel owner has the right to decide who he will admit to that particular hotel.

I want to make a further accusation against the hon. member for Jeppe and other hon. members on the opposite side, viz. that what they are advocating here is in direct conflict with the preponderance of the evidence which was submitted to the Select Committee. The Select Committee received a number of memoranda and a number of experts gave evidence. Coloured leaders expressed their opinions immediately after the tabling of the Select Committee’s report and welcomed this step. On 28 April 1975, Die Burger had an interview with eight large hotels and found that these people welcomed the new approach, not that they all necessarily wanted to apply for the privilege. On 27 April, the Sunday Times said, “The opening of hotels to all races is seen as the most significant move the Government has made”. They are referring here to the removal of racial discrimination. In the face of all this evidence, the Opposition parties want to cross swords with this side of the House. And they go even further. The hon. member for Jeppe repeatedly referred to Fedhasa’s standpoint. But what is the essence of Fedhasa’s standpoint? The facts are that they represent hundreds of hotels in this country, or rather 90% of the licensed hotel industry in South Africa. Fedhasa is really in favour of the Bill which is now before the House. In the note which was quoted by the hon. the Minister, it is said specifically that Fedhasa “accepts in full the legislation now before Parliament”. In other words, what value can we really attach to the opinions of the Opposition side, when they adopt an indefensible standpoint which is directly in conflict with that of Fedhasa, which controls 90% of the whole hotel industry in this country?

This legislation will have the effect of being able to make provision for every possibly conceivable situation which may arise. The foreign visitor and diplomatic representative will be able to stay in any hotel in this country. Any person will be able to stay in international hotels in the larger centres, regardless of his colour. In the international hotels on the important routes at specific important places, where the need exists, the necessary accommodation can also be offered. The dignitaries will be granted concessions in terms of section 7 of the Aliens Act. All people of colour will be able to obtain that. Those sailors who cannot stay in a harbour city, because there are no section 100bis hotels, can also be accommodated. In the same way, the local non-White visitor can also be accommodated,as well as persons in exceptional cases. This can all be done in an orderly and non-discriminatory way, in a way which will give no offence, nor cause any friction. Everyone will at all times be subject to the right of admission which the owner will have.

I want to pause for a moment at the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the attitude which he adopted on behalf of his party in the Select Committee. This hon. member caused his party considerable embarrassment through his action in the committee. He turned a double somersault. In the first place, he supported the draft Bill of the United Party without qualifications and unconditionally. Without any qualifications and unconditionally he gave it his support, but under the cross-examination of the hon. the Minister, the hon. member changed his stand however, and now he qualifies his support with a condition, viz. that admission should not be refused on grounds of colour. That is the way in which those hon. members back down and turn somersaults. And this is not the worst either. In the Select Committee, the hon. member for Johannesburg North agreed unconditionally with Government members that section 113 should be repealed. In the Second Reading, the hon. member said, however, “I have grave reservations about the repeal of section 113”—therefore, precisely the opposite. In other words, the hon. member has grave reservations about his own conduct on the Select Committee. But there is more to it than this. The hon. member turned a double somersault for the second time. In the Committee Stage, the hon. member wanted to rectify his wrong step, and then placed a two-fold amendment on the Order Paper, and stood up on two occasions to speak about it, without moving the amendments. Now I want to know what on earth the hon. member is trying to do. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether his hotel is a member of Fedhasa. I refer to the group of which he is probably the chairman. I want to ask the hon. member whether he will tell this House whether his hotel is a member of Fedhasa.

Yes.

The hon. member says that his hotel is a member of Fedhasa. The hon. member has, therefore, turned a somersault for the third time. Fedhasa supports the Bill word for word, and unconditionally. The hon. member, however, adopts a standpoint here which is in direct conflict with that of Fedhasa. This is absolutely incredible. Do hon. members know why the hon. member is doing this? The hon. member is doing this because he is in a cleft stick, and because this Bill says that application will have to be made for this specific authority. The hon. member is now in the position where he does not want to apply for this on behalf of his hotel, since he knows that he will lose the visitors to his hotel, who are prominent people, if he does so and that he will consequently lose a great deal of business.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not have time to answer the hon. member’s question now, since I only have one minute left to complete my speech. On the other hand, the hon. member realizes that he has another problem, viz. that his Progressive policy necessarily forces him to accommodate his non-White friends. What is the hon. member to do now? He does not want to apply for authority, because he will lose his White clients through that. On the other hand, his non-White friends tell him, “You must propagate this policy of integration and the sharing of power. Why do you not give the lead, why do you not set the example by applying for authority?”.

With these few words I want to say that I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. members for Durban North and Jeppe, and, in the course of my speech, I shall reply to some of the points which the hon. member for Durbanville mentioned.

Before coming to that, I should like to comment on some of the statements which the hon. member for Waterkloof made in respect of myself. Unfortunately, the hon. member is not in the House at the moment, but nevertheless, he referred to me and said—

Unfortunately the hon. member for Waterkloof left the benches of the friends of mine where he was sitting a few moments ago, a little too soon. I want to tell the hon. member and other hon. members that I am certainly not ashamed of my Afrikaner background, and that I am certainly not inferior in any way to the hon. member as far as my Afrikanership is concerned.

In the second place, I want to say that I have always regarded it as a quality of the Afrikaner that he will not treat others in a different way from that in which he himself wants to be treated as he has had experience of that in his own history. To me, this is one of the outstanding qualities of Afrikanerdom. It simply brings us nowhere to try to get away from this hard fact. As far as my White skin is concerned, I want to say that to me it only represents a particular sort of cultural civilization, and that civilization stands for something.

Order! The hon. member can come back to the Bill now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the amended legislation is, in fact, a considerable improvement on the original Bill on a few points. It seems to me that, if we can approach it soberly and accept that there are practical circumstances in South Africa which determine that one cannot go as far as one would like to go, we shall come a long way, if we can do these things instead of always hanging it on the peg of a particular philosophy or ideology. I want to come back in a moment to aspects of the philosophy which we have found here. I say that this Bill is an improvement, in quite a few respects, on the original. I refer in particular to the assurance given by the hon. the Minister that hotels which had established rights in respect of the admission of people of different groups, would not be affected.

Tell mommy she must apply again.

In the second place, the hon. the Minister gave the assurance in his reply to the debate, that the allegation which had been made that the number of hotels was to be limited, was wrong, and that it was not the intention to limit these to ten, but that the number would be determined by the particular needs. In the third place, the hon. the Minister said in his speech that provision would be made for hotels on travel routes. In the fourth place, the hon. the Minister has now obtained the discretion, in terms of the amending Bill—this is something which did not exist previously—to take the decision on such international hotels, and, in particular, the discretion which may be granted in particular cases. In the fifth place, provision is also made for cases such as a non-White’s motor-car breaking down on the road. When I say that these are improvements, then I mean that they are improvements, and I am pleased about these improvements, but obviously they do not satisfy the real needs of our country. When I say that there is an improvement, hon. members should realize that it is an improvement on the existing position, but that it is certainly not able to satisfy the real needs which exist in South Africa. I shall refer to that again in a moment.

The very problem which we have, is illustrated by what the hon. the Minister himself said in connection with a Bantu whose car breaks down. I shall read what he said here, and illustrate my problem on the basis of that. The hon. the Minister said that if a man’s car were to break down, he could go to a telephone to telephone the department in Pretoria. Then the department would telephone an hotel and ask the hotel whether it had room for that person. I think I am interpreting the hon. the Minister’s words correctly.

Just repeat them so that I can hear.

I am under the impression that the hon. the Minister said that if a non-White’s car were to break down, he was at liberty to telephone Pretoria and to say that his car had broken down.

The hotel will telephone.

At what time in the evening?

It does not matter at what time in the evening. It could be in the middle of the night as far as I am concerned.

If he then telephones the hotel, he is immediately faced by the problem that the hotelier—I am assuming that there is no international hotel at that place—may refuse him admission. The hotelier may say, “I am not obliged to admit you”. [Interjections.] I am merely illustrating the problem. Theoretically such a situation can arise. If that were to happen, it would mean that that man would have to telephone someone in the middle of the night…

It will be no different under your system.

That is not quite correct. I am just trying to point out to the hon. the Minister that although this is an improvement, it does not, in fact, meet the requirements altogether. That is my argument in this connection. I merely took the case of the traveller as an example. Nor need this happen only in the case of a flat tyre; he might be forced to stay at such a place for the night because of petrol restrictions or other circumstances. Then he has to find accommodation in that place, although there are no hotels there which have been designated as international hotels. The hon. member for Durbanville knows as well as I do that, even if hotels are provided for the various non-White groups in many residential areas, there are other places in which it is simply impossible for an hotel to be a paying proposition because the local non-White communities are not large enough to justify an hotel of their own. In this connection there is no point in our running away from the realities of our South African situation. In other words, it is no answer to say that they are prepared to give these people separate facilities in their own residential areas. We know that that will never be the full solution to this problem, especially in respect of those places where the non-White communities are not large enough to justify the provision of their own hotels. Nor does it make provision for cases where there is a need for contact between people, and where it is not possible or advisable to go to a non-White hotel in a non-White residential area.

But let me continue. On this occasion, I should like to point out the problems which I have with the arguments which have been raised here. We have problems in our country; all of us know that, but the problem which I have is that arguments have been used here which are, in fact, contradictory. Nevertheless, these arguments are used to reject certain things. We cannot say, on the one hand, that the proposal of the Opposition will lead to discrimination, because hotel owners will then be able to discriminate by not admitting Blacks or other non-Whites, and, on the other hand, that all the hotels will be overrun. All I can say, is that those two arguments contradict each other. Another argument which is used is that the Opposition’s proposal is in conflict with the principle of the recognition of cultural differences. The policy of the Government —why we have to bring in policy aspects is something I cannot understand—is to recognize and to maintain the cultural identity of each of the different groups. So what happens at international hotels? Does cultural identity not apply there? Who is going to lose his cultural identity if he goes to an international hotel? The Blacks or the Whites? According to the answer which was given here by the hon. the Minister, the numbers of foreigners who come to this country are increasing considerably. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, there is a probability that prominent people from Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana will also be dealt with in terms of clause 1 of the Bill.

No.

Then I misunderstood the position. I understood that those eminent people would have to get permits. The problem has been stated here: What happens to the Ministers and similar people who come from Swaziland and our other neighbour states to this country? At the moment, there is free entry. If I interpret the position correctly, it was then said that they could obtain permits, temporary residence permits, which will admit them to all hotels in terms of clause 1. Do these people run the risk of forfeiting their cultural identity? If a man comes here from Swaziland, Lesotho or Botswana, or a Black man comes from America or another part of the world, and goes to an hotel, what does the question of cultural identity or the maintenance of cultural identity have to do with that? Surely it is very clear that whatever the motivation for this sort of arrangement might be, we cannot use the maintenance of the cultural identities of the various groups as an argument on this point. That argument really has no logic.

Now I want to deal with an argument which was used by the hon. member for Durbanville and the hon. member for Bellville. They raised the question of orderliness and legal certainty. It is beyond me that the hon. member for Bellville can speak of legal certainty being created, in contradistinction to the legal uncertainty which will exist if the discretion is left to the hotel owner. What legal certainty does exist? What legal certainty exists for the traveller when he enters a town? [Interjection.] How must he know that?

Ask Hymie Miller how he knows that.

How should he know that?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes.

How does the hon. member know whether a hotel is a five-star, a four-star or a three-star hotel?

It has already been decided that those hotels will be indicated by a specific sign. [Interjections.] The stars are indicated. The Hotel Board’s sign is there.

Precisely.

But that has nothing to do with the question of legal certainty. [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. Let us analyse the argument a little further. We have the situation here where there will be international hotels at specific places and not at other places. However, it has not been said that there will be an hotel which can take in non-Whites at every place in South Africa. Where is the legal certainty then? If we know that there is an hotel in every town, then we can speak of legal certainty.

You do not know what legal certainty means.

The hon. member for Bellville used the word “legal certainty”. There are two different aspects. There is, firstly, the legal certainty, where one can say that the Act now regulates the situation in contrast to the chaotic condition which existed earlier. In that connection, I concede that there is a degree of legal certainty. However, that is not the context in which the hon. member for Bellville used the words “legal certainty”. He said every one would now know that there was an hotel to which he could go. I just want to say that in that sense, this arrangement creates no certainty. [Interjections.] All I am saying is that it creates no certainty. There is no point in our bluffing ourselves or in our pulling the wool over our eyes and saying that the situation is, in fact, such that legal certainty is created. It is simply not correct.

What interested me as well, was the denial by the hon. the Minister that we were discriminating between foreigners and our own people in this way. The hon. the Minister will remember—I do not need to read it to him—that he referred, inter alia, to Black people from America. The hon. the Minister’s defence was—if I remember correctly—that our own non-Whites would possibly be grateful because a few hotels had been designated.

I said they understood our situation.

They understand our situation. Then I just want to say…

And you must not try to bedevil it.

Mr. Speaker, I object most strongly to that. I am not be-devilling the situation. If there is anything which bedevils a situation, then it is this Government’s policy of discrimination. There is no point in the hon. the Minister saying that I bedevil the situation. Sir, it is not correct.

It is very unfair.

It is a very unfair remark on the part of the Minister. Sir, let me say at once that we cannot argue away the fact that we are discriminating in this regard between Blacks from Swaziland, from Lesotho, from Botswana and from other countries, and our own Black people. Sir, all I ask is that we be honest. In that case, let us say that we are discriminating. In other words, we are not doing away with discrimination between those two groups of people, nor are we doing away with discrimination between the hotels, because certain hotels will have this right or privilege, and others will not have it.

Sir, we have heard an interesting new terminology from the hon. the Minister. He has introduced new concepts into this debate, concepts which we shall surely have to investigate further. In this debate I heard for the first time of dual discrimination, horizontal and vertical. I have been wondering whether the hon. the Minister has perhaps read the latest report of the Le Grange Commission. I assume that he has read it. Sir, this is a new concept, and I should like us to analyse it a little further at some time or other. Are we going to say, in particular cases, that vertical discrimination is wrong, but that horizontal discrimination is right? All I want to know is what the implication is, not only in respect of this Bill, but in respect of the handling of our racial issues in South Africa in general. Are we going to draw a distinction between horizontal discrimination and vertical discrimination?

As it goes from corner to corner.

I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister who is the creator of this interesting distinction, of which I cannot yet read the full implications at this stage, what the implication is of the distinction he drew in this regard. Sir, I deduced from his use of these two terms that the hon. the Minister in fact says that the one form of discrimination is good, but not the other form, because he said the Opposition wanted to allow one form of discrimination, but not the other.

Now you are putting words into my mouth.

Sir, if I can have a moment, I shall read out what the hon. the Minister said. I do not want to put words into his mouth. I should not like to do so; it is not something I practise. The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Durban North should not get excited and went on to say—

Then he proceeded—

What is so strange about that?

I think the impression is that what the hon. the Minister wanted to say, is that certain forms of discrimination are justified. Perhaps my deduction is wrong, but the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. If the Minister says my deduction is wrong…

I shall correct you straightaway—you are talking nonsense.

If the Minister tells me I am wrong, and that he is not in favour of either vertical discrimination or horizontal discrimination, but only interested in regulated discrimination, then we come to a third new principle in this matter, and we get into even deeper confusion. At the same time, the Minister says this does not discriminate. Sir, I quote these points purely to indicate that we are confused in our thinking as to how we should proceed and as to the principles which we should apply. I want to repeat —and it has been said hundreds of times in this House—that there are practical circumstances which must be taken into consideration, and it is certainly not possible, no matter who wants to do so, to introduce all sorts of changes, however sought after or desirable they might be deemed to be, at a moment’s notice. But what I am asking, is that we should get away from this confusion of concepts and of ideologies at the basis of the things which we do. That is all I am asking.

Then, in conclusion, I just want to repeat that I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough; I do not believe this Bill meets the needs of our time, and that I do believe that the Bill which the Opposition presented, is a better solution to the situation of today.

We have listened to three speakers on that side now and we have not yet had any satisfactory answer from them to the statements we made during the Second Reading, viz. that their proposal carried within it the seeds of discrimination and legal insecurity. The hon. member for Edenvale, in all kinds of ways, by playing on words and even by putting words in the hon. the Minister’s mouth concerning discrimination, has been trying to get away from the statement with which they were squarely faced, namely that their motion would in itself promote discrimination and insecurity. The hon. member said that he cannot understand the statement by the hon. member for Bellville concerning legal security that he is totally unable to understand how the hon. member can maintain that. I want to spell it out for him, practically and simply. A Coloured teacher living in Cape Town decides to pay a visit to his brother in Johannesburg. Under our system there are, say, five international hotels along the route between Cape Town and Johannesburg. In time, this will be included in AA pamphlets, etc., and he will be able to plan his route. He now has a choice of five hotels at which he and his family can stay the night. He can look this up in advance, he can book and plan his route, because he knows that those facilities are available to him. Under the Opposition’s proposal, he has to get into his car and then he must guess where he is going to find a hotel proprietor who will exercise his discretion and admit him. He may enter a town at which he is only admitted after trying five hotels, after having been refused four times, because when he gets to a smaller town, 200 or 400 miles from here, he is not acquainted with local conditions and even though it may be known locally that the proprietor of hotel A is prepared to admit Coloureds, he will not know this because he does not live in that area. That is what legal security means, viz. that a person is able to plan in advance, that he will know and that he need not, therefore, suffer the humiliation of being refused admittance on grounds of his colour. That is exactly what their proposal would result in. It is true that in many cases a person will be helped at the first hotel he applies to, but in just as many cases there is a grave risk that he will be refused and sent from pillar to post. The hon. members cannot deny that they want to escape the responsibility by shifting it on to the shoulders of the hotel proprietors. I think that they want to shift an unfair burden on to the hotel proprietors.

Is that what Brand Fourie said?

Brand Fourie was referring to foreign visitors.

In the second instance, the hon. member again tried to make a case that this legislation is discriminatory legislation and that we speak approvingly of one kind of discrimination and disapprovingly of another kind. I think we had better take another brief look at the concept “discrimination”. In politics, the concept “discrimination” has acquired a negative meaning which amounts to: measures which oppress, which deprive people of rights, which leave people spiritually and economically impoverished, which give offence, which tell a person merely on the basis of colour that he is being deprived of certain privileges which others demand for themselves.

That is precisely what is being done now.

That is precisely what we are not doing, because we are not denying any coloured person hotel accommodation. Whatever the theoretical position may be, in practice the Coloured people and Black people in South Africa are suffering at the moment from a lack of convenient hotel accommodation when they travel or when they are in the big cities and have no choice but to sit at table and dine with people of other national groups. That is the factual situation, but we are hereby creating the facilities for Coloured people and Black people to do precisely this, to know what the position is, precisely as I have tried to express it in practical and graphic terms to the hon. members, so that when they travel, they may have overnight and eating facilities or can have conference facilities in the centres where this is required, in order to have forums where they can meet and discuss matters. Those facilities are being established now, and now I ask: Where is the discrimination? We go even further, because the hon. the Minister says that as the demand increases, the facilities will increase accordingly. Therefore, where a bona fide demand is proved, facilities are established.

Once again, the whole argument advanced by the hon. member brings us back to the essence of the difference between that side and this side. For the sake of their liberal image and for the sake of their struggle with the left, which is becoming progressively more violent, that side wants to project the image of drawing no distinction between people on the basis of colour, race or descent. They want to project the image that as far as they are concerned, civilization is the only criterion, as it is with the Progressives.

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

The hon. member can put a question to me later; I first want to deal with this point. Although they want to build that image, it is, in the meantime inherent in what they have said during this debate that they recognize the right of the White person to keep himself separate and say, “I do not want to share this or that”. Hon. members have stated in this debate that in cases where the White clients do not like it, hotel proprietors will refuse to allow Coloureds. The hon. members pin their hopes to the possibility that friction will occur. They go further. When they explain their policy to the White person, they base it on separate education, separate residential areas and separate voters’ rolls. They cannot escape from the fact that they draw a distinction, and in the same way they want to draw a distinction in regard to hotels. As a party, however, they are not prepared to draw a distinction. They say: “We leave it to the hotel proprietors.” The hon. member can put his question now.

Is the identity of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking groups threatened by the fact that they use the same hotels?

There are two reasons for our having discriminatory measures; the one is to protect our identity and the identity of every other population group, and the other is to prevent friction. The more important of the two, as regards this practical matter of hotels, is the risk of friction. When we have the situation of ten White men standing drinking in a bar, and 15 Bantu enter that same bar and also begin to drink, a situation is created with a potential for friction, particularly if this occurs in a country town. Secondly, if the way of life of separate facilities in all spheres in South Africa is subverted and converted into a way of life involving integration, then our identity is in danger. That is why it is important, for the sake of identity and for the sake of the elimination of friction, for us to draw this distinction.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If we take it that there is full integration with regard to Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa, as is in fact the case, can we say that the identity of either of these groups is threatened thereby?

I shall reply with a counter-question. If Black persons are allowed to move in on both sides of the hon. member in his residential area, will his identity be threatened thereby? If not, why does the hon. member advocate separate residential areas? His identity will not be affected, but if it becomes the overall pattern that there should be integrated residential areas in South Africa, the identity of the peoples of South Africa will be jeopardized. This is so simple and crystal-clear, that I cannot understand the hon. member, if he wants to be reasonable and fair, not even wanting to display insight into this argument. This is the kind of argument he advanced for years when he was still pro-Nationalist. The facts on which that argument is based have never changed, although the hon. member has changed.

I want to repeat that this Bill can stand the test of the Opposition’s attack on it unscathed. Their point of attack is that we want to discriminate by means of this measure. Our reply is that to establish facilities, to create new opportunities and to open doors, does not constitute discrimination. However, to evade responsibility, in the certain knowledge that if these decisions are left entirely to hotel proprietors, some of those proprietors will refuse to provide facilities, is, in itself, to afford opportunities for discrimination. That is why we still feel as strongly as ever that this Bill is a sound piece of legislation and that the Opposition has given one of its poorer performances here, and that is saying a lot.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the hon. member for Vereeniging a little bit later on and I would also like to be as brief as possible, but I do think that it is important to see this Bill in the context of the hopes and aspirations which were aroused and then to look at the end result of the sitting of the Select Committee and of this debate. I would like to quote the following from Die Beeld of 26 April—

Before I go on to the last two paragraphs I want to point out that, as against those hopes, we have had the intimation from a representative of the Liquor Board that he visualizes ten open hotels in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he will go a bit further than this and that he will possibly authorize a number of other hotels outside the principal cities where that official visualized the ten open hotels. That is the first disappointment. We come then to the second paragraph—

What are you reading from?

Die Beeld of 26 April. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will answer—I mentioned it in my Second Reading speech and the hon. member for Edenvale has asked this question— whether, when he comes to laying down such conditions as he may deem fit for the creation of these open hotels, there is going to be any difference between the treatment given and extended to, and the facilities which may be enjoyed by, Black foreigners and Black and Brown South Africans. I hope that the hon. the Minister will come back to that. The last paragraph of this leading article says—

Order! Is the hon. member quoting the comments of a newspaper?

Yes, I am quoting a newspaper.

Which one?

Die Beeld. I will give it to the hon. the Minister afterwards if that will help.

The hon. member is not allowed to quote from a newspaper report on this debate. [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon, Sir. I shall come back to our reaction to this Bill. During the Second Reading, we said that there were four main proposals in this Bill. The first one was to take away rights that are presently enjoyed, even where they were not exercised in the past by Black and Brown South Africans, and we said that we are against that particular proposal. Secondly, we said that we were in favour of the extension of the privileges which were going to be given to foreign visitors to the country. In regard to those two proposals, our attitude remains exactly the same. Thirdly, we said that we welcome the creation of a chain of international hotels, however limited it appeared to be at this particular time. That certainly remains our view. When it comes to section 113 and the repeal of that section, we said during the Second Reading that we had grave reservations about this. All we can say, is that everything that we have heard during this debate, far from putting our reservations to rest, has increased them. I would like to simply illustrate by example what has caused our reservations to increase and solidify in regard to the repeal of section 113. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that in so far as he understood the position—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—once the repeal of section 113 had gone through, any hotelier would be entitled to refuse—and he used the example of myself—entry to any of facilities, restaurants or hotels, simply on the basis of the colour of a person’s eyes. I think that what the hon. the Minister was getting at was that there was a total discretion in the hands of the manager of an hotel to refuse admittance to any person without giving any reasons for or sufficient reasons for doing so. If that is the case, we on these benches are entirely opposed to this particular measure. Having accepted during the Second Reading that ultimately we must get to a position where restaurants and hotels which are providing a service to the public are under the obligation to serve the public unless there are good and sufficient causes, I now want to come back to this comparatively narrow chain of international hotels. As we understand the intention of this, it is to legalize what is accepted practice in regard to foreigners and then to extend privileges to Black and Brown South Africans. The mechanics of the measure are such that the management of the hotel has to apply for a licence, that is it has to seek authority from the hon. the Minister to be an international hotel. Given those circumstances, the manager of the hotel clearly knows what he is doing. He is, namely, seeking permission to be allowed to admit under whatever conditions the hon. the Minister may lay down, Black and Brown South Africans in his hotel. We cannot understand, however, how the manager of an hotel or of a restaurant can within those circumstances, within those very circumscribed limits, refuse somebody simply on the basis of colour.

You are answering your own question now.

I am simply saying that I do not understand how one can then…

He will not refuse on colour after he has applied for their admission.

You give them the right to refuse.

This is where the whole argument falls down because the hon. member for Bloemfontein East said that we had the right to discriminate, the right to refuse a person into an open hotel purely on the basis of colour, if section 113 of the Act is repealed. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said that the hotel management could refuse to admit me on the ground of the colour of my eyes. I take that as an example because here we have a total element of discretion.

Do not take it too far.

No, I shall not take it too far. What I am saying is that if the Government wanted to move away from discrimination there should be no right to refuse admission to an open hotel simply on the basis of the person’s colour. If we want to argue the Government’s case, like the hon. members for Durbanville, Bloemfontein East, Bellville and particularly the hon. member for Vereeniging did, we should turn this Bill around so that hotels should have to apply not to be open hotels, because this is in effect what the Government is accusing us of doing. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would consider that. Why does he not change it so that if an hotel does not want to be an open hotel, it can apply to be so? As we understand it, the Government is trying to move away from discrimination.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Durban North said because I want to make our position clear in relation to the attitude of both the Government and the United Party. Yesterday the hon. member said that their policy was a healthy policy because it would enable the person in the area concerned to determine whether a situation should or should not develop. He went on to say—

I take it to mean—the hon. member for East London City or any hon. member of the United Party who is going to take part in this debate can correct me if I am wrong—that the United Party stands for the right of the management of the hotel to decide whether to allow a person in even if the hon. the Minister has given his permission that the hotel could be an open hotel for Black and Brown South Africans. I take it that they stand for the right of the management to refuse admission to people simply on the ground of colour. If that is so, I simply want to make it quite clear that we on these benches differ fundamentally from both the United Party and the Government.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion most of the members of the Opposition, in discussing this Bill, have failed to bear in mind what the position has been in South Africa all these years. They have not always borne in mind the customs and the history of our hotel industry in South Africa. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, ever since 1928, when the Liquor Act was passed, our custom in South Africa has been that non-Whites have not really entered the hotels. They accepted the position, although some of them found out in time that they could in fact sleep and eat in the hotels. They were told this, too, but nevertheless they did not make use of this facility. Such radical changes having occurred in South Africa and the world, it actually became necessary to invite these people publicly to go to some of these hotels. In the course of the evidence before the Select Committee we heard, over and over again, that there were people at Government level from abroad, inter alia, non-Whites from Africa, who came here and had to stay here and we had to make provision for them. We found, too, that we had to provide for certain groups of South African non-Whites. It was with the aim of establishing legal security and telling people exactly what the position was that this Bill was introduced. The hon. member for Edenvale asked what legal security this Bill created. I want to ask him a counter-question: “If their draft Bill, in terms of which all the hotels would be thrown open and it would be left to the hotel proprietors to admit people to their hotels or not, were accepted, what would then become of legal security? How would a person know whether he could go to a specific hotel without first applying there and talking to the proprietor? In that case the hotel proprietor could perhaps have said, “No, man, I cannot accommodate you.” It would cause more legal insecurity and lack of order if their draft Bill were to be adopted. I think that they, too, should consider the matter for a moment in that light. In contrast to that, the Bill at present before the House establishes absolute legal security. Everyone will now know exactly which hotel is or is going to be an international hotel. As we envisage it, each hotel will have some emblem which will eliminate any doubt in peoples’ minds. When a White person enters a town and does not feel like staying at an hotel where there are non-Whites, he can avoid that hotel because he may come across non-Whites there. The same goes for the non-Whites. One would not like to embarrass him; one wants to spare him that embarrassment. When he enters a town and he sees that emblem, he knows that he can stay there. It is not necessary then to go to all the hotels asking whether he can be accommodated, and perhaps be shown the door by the hotel proprietor, too. There is now absolute certainty and orderliness in this regard. That is why the hon. members on our side referred to legal security.

What about the conditions? How will he know about them?

Apart from that, we have now also eliminated the doubt in the minds of the hotel proprietors themselves —this is stated in this report—in that he now knows exactly which channels he must follow to be able to accommodate non-Whites. Now they will no longer be placed in the embarrassing position of having to apply hurriedly to the hon. Minister for a permit at the last moment, without knowing whether they will obtain that permit. Now they know in advance how to regulate their affairs. That is why I say that there is absolute legal security. I wonder whether hon. members have also forgotten the report submitted to us which contained details of the number of applications which came before the hon. the Minister. 466 applications were received from 59 hotels. This immediately gives us an indication of the approximate number of hotels which will acquire international status. One can say that there will be about 59 hotels to start with. This is apart from the international hotels in our larger cities, as well as the other hotels along the road routes, in the towns and in the cities. So far there are about 59 which have already applied. The hon. the Minister is not going to stop at 59; he may grant many more, or he may say that 59 is too many. However, this indicates to us that there is not an enormous demand for hotels of this kind and that there will only be a small number of these hotels to which licences will be granted.

As far as the issue of the legal security is concerned, I just want to refer to the position of tourists in South Africa. When they come in a group, they arrange their affairs with one or other travel agency. This travel agency arranges bus tours and accommodation for them. Those travel agencies will know very well which hotels are international hotels, which hotels can accommodate non-Whites, and which hotels cannot accommodate non-Whites. Just as people are taken on a bus tour and the travel agency knows where they are going, in the same way they will know where to channel these people.

In fact, hon. members of the Opposition hinted that this Bill would not meet the demand. I want to quote a few extracts from Oggendblad of 9 May to illustrate what some of our non-Whites had said with regard to the hotel accommodation they were now going to get. The article is entitled (translation)—

It goes on to state—

Order! The hon. member may not quote newspaper comment on this debate.

Then I just want to read what coloured people themselves had to say about the accommodation. [Interjections.] This came from the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. They all welcomed this Bill. Many of them expressed the opinion that this opened doors to them and that this was what they were asking for. In the committee, too, letters from these people were submitted to us. They do not ask that hotels be thrown open entirely. Many of them only ask that a certain need be fulfilled. That is exactly what we are doing by means of this Bill before the House.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked what conditions would be laid down for hotels accommodating international people and what conditions would be laid down for hotels accommodating local non-Whites. He wants to know how the conditions will vary, whether the conditions will be the same, etc. I think the hon. the Minister put it very clearly that conditions would be laid down which would depend on local circumstances and requirements. I think that should be an adequate reply. Sir, it is not always possible to lay down a fixed rule at this stage and say, “For that part of the country I am going to lay down these conditions and for that part of the country, those ones”. Local conditions and requirements will determine the conditions. The hon. the Minister has the discretion.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I want to say that I found this debate very stimulating. Once again I want to convey my thanks to all members of the Select Committee, on both sides, for the time they sacrificed in trying to resolve a very difficult practical situation for us. Sir, there is a difference of opinion between the two parties on the ultimate solution. We on this side of the House do not want to regard our solution as being perfect. Hon. members on that side pointed out certain dangers, and I want to tell them that their contribution to the debate was of such a nature that, whatever the eventual solution which is decided on may be, one will always be on one’s guard against the dangers which they held up to us here. Sir, in that respect I want to thank all hon. members who participated in this debate. It was a stimulating debate, and I think a debate of a high standard.

Sir, in reality there are not very many points to which I have to reply. There are only a few minor points I have to reply to briefly, and hon. members will allow me to begin with the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

†It appears to me, Sir, that the hon. member for Johannesburg North seems to have a real difficulty as far as section 113is concerned. The hon. member seems to have taken my figure of speech about his brown eyes very literally. I wonder whether I should pass him a pinch of salt. I want to say to the hon. member that it is quite correct that with the repeal of section 113, the hotelier will be entitled to turn people away from his hotel. That is correct. I would like to remind the hon. member that I issued that very warning in my Second Reading speech. I said that in spite of the fact that we were now repealing section 113, I would have another look at the situation if we found that hoteliers were exercising their discretion arbitrarily. The hon. member seems to have forgotten that I said that in my Second Reading speech. I want to say to him that it is correct that the hotelier has a total discretion. He can turn away any person. I think the hon. member answered his own question when he argued that it was difficult to accept that a hotelier would turn away a man on the basis of the pigmentation of his skin, when he himself had applied to the National Liquor Board for permission to have an open hotel. This would certainly be ridiculous. I cannot imagine the difficulty that the hon. member for Johannesburg North seems to clutch to his bosom with such tenderness. Surely this is impossible, Sir. Why would an hotelier apply to the National Liquor Board to be allowed to admit Black people into his hotel and then turn round and say to them, “I am going to keep you out of my hotel because you are Black”? On the other hand, Sir. I want to give the hotelier the right, if a Black man or a Brown man or a White man does not conform to the standard which he himself has laid down for his hotel, to say to him: “Go and put on a tie before you come into my dining-room”, or “Get out of the bar, you have had too many drinks”. This is a right I am giving to the hotelier. I am not giving him the right to chase a Black man away after he has asked me to allow him to accommodate Black men. So the hon. member must not pose a problem which can never exist, which can never come up in practice. This certainly will not happen. On the other hand, when a man has not applied to have an open hotel, he is entitled to turn people away, on the grounds that his hotel is an hotel for White people only.

Do I take it that the hon. the Minister agrees that he could lay down a condition for an open hotel which would give the management the right to turn any person away but not on the basis of colour?

Mr. Speaker, you know, it is difficult for me to keep on answering the same question when I have already given the answer. I must be quite honest. I cannot visualize all the possibilities that an hotelier may find in his way. It is impossible for me to spell it out from A to Z, or from one to a million. There are as many things that can happen in a day as there are days. I cannot foresee those things, but I can tell the hon. member that it may well be that conditions are imposed, depending on the percentage of Blacks. I do not know. It will depend on the circumstances. It will depend on the circumstances of the place, and it will depend on the cultural background of people. It can depend on so many factors which can be raised, but they will be raised in public debate. The National Liquor Board will have a public meeting as far as these applications are concerned, so that anyone who has anything to say on any grounds can be heard in public and people can debate it in public. In the light of those circumstances will we then take our decision as to what conditions to lay down. Surely that is simple.

*I come now to the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member has a hobbyhorse which he is riding around on. This is the person whose motor-car breaks down somewhere, and who then has to call on at an hotel which has no international sign. What is legally uncertain about that? I cannot, with the best will in the world, understand what the hon. member’s difficulty is. The hon. member says this Bill is not creating legal certainty. Of course it is creating legal certainty. There will be international hotels in the city, and there will also be international hotels in the rural areas. Those hotels will most probably display a sign indicating that they are open hotels. Those hotels will most certainly be mentioned in the brochures of the hotel industry, and any member of the travelling public is therefore able to obtain a pamphlet from the travel agency, open it at page 2 or 3, and find there a list of hotels to which he may go, if he is a person of another colour. Then that person knows precisely what his position is. If his motorcar breaks down on the journey, he need only consult his booklet. Let me spell it out in detail to the hon. member now, for he was apparently unable to think this out for himself. He takes out his booklet, turns to page 3, and sees that he is near Clanwilliam, and that Clamwilliam has no international hotel. Now he is in trouble. He walks to the first hotel and says: “Sir, I am an inspector of Bantu schools; I am a Bantu as you can see; my car has broken down, and now I have to find a place to spend the night, but I see there is no international hotel here; would you do me the favour of accommodating me?” The hotel owner looks him up and down. He sees that this person is wearing a nice tie, he is neatly dressed and he has a pleasant appearance, and he says to this person: “Yes, you may enter; here I have the telephone number of the National Liquor Board on my writing desk, clearly written down”—we could have it printed for them, if the hon. member for Edenvale would like that to be done. Then he makes the telephone call. It is in the middle of the night, and the official is still sleeping. But he wakes up, and the hotel owner says it is Clanwilliam on the line, and asks what he should do. The officials says: “Let him sleep in”. What more could the hon. member ask for? I have explained all this very clearly, but then the hon. members raise the same problem over and over again. Surely this is childish. There is complete legal certainty. But now the hon. member is crossing swords with me on a philosophic issue which is entirely removed from this debate.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has ever tried to get through to Pretoria from Clanwilliam in the middle of the night or at any other time for that matter?

I can give the hon. member that answer too. If the person looks presentable to him, the hotelier may not want to try to get through to Pretoria at 12 o’clock at night, so he invites the man in, and phones the next day or writes to Pretoria to say that he accommodated the man because he had no option and could not get through on the telephone. It is as simple as all that.

That is breaking the law.

How can he be breaking the law? Don’t be silly.

*I return to the hon. member for Edenvale, who wanted to drag a red herring across the floor of this House. He wanted to know from me what the difference between horizontal and vertical discrimination is. Surely he moves in circles that do not agree with the National Party. Am I correct? There are certain circles which believe that there should be a multi-racial situation in South Africa, and how many times has that kind of South African not said to me personally: “Why do you have a law for apartheid? Price the Black man out of the buses; do not put anything in writing, but charge him R1 and the Whites 20 cents for the same distance. Price him out of it! ” That is horizontal apartheid. [Interjections.] Yes now the hon. member understands; he is pretending that he has heard this before. Well, he has heard this before, but he puts all kinds of clever questions to me as if I would not be able to reply to him. The hon. member takes it amiss of me because I say he is one of those who are marring race relations in South Africa. The United Party caused a minority report to be included in the report of the Select Committee, in which they stated: “Throw open the hotels, subject only to the discretion of the hotel owner.”

We never said that.

But that is what is written there.

No, Sir.

What does the hon. member for Durban North say? Is that correct, or it is not correct?

That is your deduction, an exaggerated deduction.

It seems to me as though the hon. member has not read the minority report of his party. I do not want to make an exaggerated deduction, but in the proposed Bill the following appears—

“In his discretion”.

Yes, “in his discretion”. Surely I said it was a discretion.

No, you said we are saying: “Throw them open”.

I said: “Throw them open, subject to the discretion of the hotel owner.” I say that that is the position. However, what do we find in this debate? [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Durban North would give me his attention, I shall tell him what he actually said here this afternoon. He said it in the Second Reading debate, and repeated it this afternoon. He said to me: “Oh, you are so concerned about legislation now, but for years and years there have been bioscopes, and Black people have never attended these. This was the way it was in the old days.” He referred to the golden age.

The days before the Nationalist Government, that is right.

Fair enough—before the Nats. However, what was the position before the Nats? The Black man did not get anywhere. There was no question of separation; separation was not necessary, for the Black man did not get anywhere. Those are the days which the hon. member longs for. It is against this background that they advocated total integration in their minority report, but at the same time the hon. member says to me: “The hotel owner must and shall exercise his discretion, as in the good old days. We need not be afraid.” He keeps on shouting at me: “Do you not trust the hotel owners?” Now the hon. member for Edenvale is asking me why I say that it is they who are bedevilling the situation. I say this because their attitude is the typical attitude of people who advocated integration. They say: “There is no reason to be afraid; this is only happening in a small area. You need not be afraid. We should like to share a meal with a Black man in an hotel.” Of course, all of us want to do this, but we must remember that that Black man has thousands of other Black people behind him, who are just as entitled to eat and drink as the VIP is entitled to do. That is the difficulty. The hon. members opposite are living in a dream world. I made this very clear in my Second Reading speech, and I am saying this again: I am not ashamed to say this overseas either: Our situation in South Africa is unique. Our situation in South Africa is unlike the situation abroad. If we had been 200 million Americans and 20 million Negroes, we would have had a different song to sing. If we had been 50 million Britons as against five million Blacks—and yet they are beginning to show alarm—we would have had a different song to sing. But I have quoted the figures: We are 18 million non-Whites as against four million Whites. In addition we are hemmed in by 200 million non-Whites. Then that hon. member speaks about the retention of identity! I am entitled to say that I wish to retain my identity. I am not ashamed of that, not here and not in New York either. I have said this in New York already. When we pursue a policy with which we wish to preserve our identity and wish to respect the identity of other people, what is wrong with that?

What is the position in Rhodesia?

What is that hon. member there saying? He is talking a lot of nonsense again. I am coming to Rhodesia in a moment; just remind me to do so. I repeat that this measure is not discriminatory, and I shall say this in New York, London, Berlin and Bonn. This legislation which we are placing on the Statute Book is not discriminatory, but regulatory. It is legislation which regulates relations. We are not insulting anyone. We are not insulting the Black man, but are creating facilities for him. We have stated very clearly that we will establish for those people as many Black and Brown hotels as possible, as quickly as possible, in their own areas. In our areas we shall create facilities, but this is a White area. I am prepared to share my facilities with them. How can hon. members then try to bring discrimination into this debate? Surely there is no question of discrimination here? The hon. member for Jeppe, who is holding a conversation over there again, asked me what I say about clause 3, in which I am ostensibly barring Black people from hotels.

You gave me the answer.

Then I am very pleased. After all, we have to impose a prohibition in order to make exceptions.Surely we cannot make exceptions on exceptions. I have in fact imposed a prohibition, but the entire Bill should be seen in its entirety. The prohibition is there, but the possibility of exemptions is also there. The creation and provision of facilities is also there. This is part of our facilities which we are giving these people. However, we are not prepared simply to throw open the hotels. After all, we have supporters for our policy, people who are entitled to say that it is our philosophy, and that we are in the House of Assembly, to promote separate development. We are entitled to say that our people want us to do certain things, that is why we are creating facilities in this manner.

The hon. member for East London City asked me what the situation in Rhodesia was. Rhodesia did what this hon. member wants us to do. They threw open the hotels, and do hon. members know what happened? I am quoting the following—

They experienced precisely the same difficulty which I predicted to the hon. members in terms of their minority report, namely that their hotels were virtually in undated by Black people, not Black people of quality, but Black people off the streets who sat there all night drinking beer. Subsequently they began to cause a disturbance there. Those people then had no choice but to put a stop to the same thing the hon. member for Durban North is now advocating. They then had to promulgate regulations under the Land Tenure Act. In December 1972 there was a court case, and the regulations were declared ultra vires. However, I am quoting further—

This is my reply to the hon. member who keeps on telling me that the position which they advocate is the same as the position in Rhodesia. Let me make it very clear that there is no discriminatory conduct in Rhodesia either. I want to make this very clear. I am sorry the hon. member involved Rhodesia in this discussion. It is not discriminatory; it is also regulatory. All of us in South Africa are trying to give these people facilities, to uplift them, and to give them a standard of living so that we can create a life form in Southern Africa in terms of which all of us can live, each according to his own identity and each according to his own cultural background. That hon. member, however, does not know when a person’s identity is being affected. I shall leave the hon. member’s speech at that.

This has been a very interesting debate, and I wish to thank hon. members for it once again. I want to tell hon. members that there is legal certainty now, as well as separation, but there is also development which falls within the basic pattern of the National Party’s policy of separate development. For that reason this Bill will be a very great success.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—97: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J, E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn,S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; 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 der Walt, H. J.; D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; 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—39: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the concealment of the backlog of capital works on our budget system. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to put his cards on the table in this regard and to agree to indicate before each, capital work the year that that capital work was approved of. This would have the effect of allowing members of Parliament to make an intelligent assessment of when a capital work was approved and also of enabling them to see what the backlog of capital works is. If the hon. the Minister should refuse to do this, there is no way whatsoever in which an hon. member can assess the backlog of capital works unless he takes the budgets of the past 20 years and starts checking each particular work. In the past the Government has used revenue to finance capital works instead of borrowing money. Last year Parliament had to authorize revenue funds to advance further moneys to Iscor. With the new system there will be an even greater inclination to use revenue for Iscor’s vast capital programme and for other capital works of the Government. Surely Iscor, other Government institutions and the Government itself are able to borrow sufficient money either externally or internally without using so much of our revenue funds? I want to make it quite clear that we wish Iscor and all the other institutions well which borrow funds, but we feel that they must not borrow so much of our revenue funds which we require urgently. If a unitary budgeting system is accepted, it is a foregone conclusion that far greater demands will be made on revenue to finance capital projects.

Why?

I shall come to the reason for that. This means in effect that this generation is being made to pay for that which future generations should pay for. It also means that revenue which should have been used for the have-nots, is not available as it is being used instead on capital projects. The extra revenue could have been used to help subsidize essential foodstuffs in order to keep the cost of living down, particularly for the poorer section of the community. This revenue could also have been used to assist in increasing social and civil pensions for all race groups. In addition, it could have been used to assist in the education and training of all race groups. I could mention a host of other things for which this revenue could be used.

I am most surprised and actually shocked at the attitude of the Progressive Party. They actually support the Government where the Government wants to use more revenue for capital expenditure. In this connection I want to quote from the Second Reading speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. On 30 May he said—

After giving a very stupid example, the hon. member went on to say:

I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that it matters very much if the Government uses revenue for capital expenditure.

Why?

Because then there is less money available for assisting the aged, the sick, the poor and the needy. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is laughing because he does not fall into any of those categories.

The Progressive Party has failed to indicate whether they support or reject this Bill. Their attitude is alarming and disappointing in the extreme. I should like once again to quote from the Second Reading speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North to show that they have taken no decision yet on this Bill. When he continued his speech yesterday, he said initially—

It is so important that he does not indicate what his view is in respect of it. Then, at the close of his speech, he said—

He said that they first want to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in reply to the reservations they have expressed before they decide whether to support or reject the Bill. Members of Parliament, including the members representing the Progressive Party, received this Explanatory Memorandum of 15 pages from the Minister’s department. In addition, the hon. the Minister made a short Second Reading speech. What is more, the hon. the Minister and I think all hon. members, including the hon. member for Johannesburg North, had access to the reports of the Franzsen Commission. The hon. member could have read those reports. Despite the fact that all this information was available, the Progressives are unable to indicate whether they accept or reject this Bill.

It is a pity you read all that because you do not understand economics.

As far as I am aware, the hon. the Minister will probably be the last speaker in this debate. In other words, the Progressive Party is prepared to let the Second Reading of this Bill go through without taking a stand. I think however that their friends in the Reformist Party may come to their assistance because I see that one of their members looks pregnant and ready to burst. I think it is time that the Progressive Party spent more time on their parliamentary duties and less time on romancing. Nationalist Party speakers have till now not shown very much interest in this debate. It will be very interesting to see the stand they are going to take in regard to this matter. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this Bill seeks to change our entire budgeting system detrimentally. It seems as though the official Opposition can expect no support of either a retrogressive or a deformist nature. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this form of budgeting is the form of budgeting he advocates for provincial councils and local authorities.

In conclusion I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Constantia on his outstanding Second Reading speech. I want to take this opportunity to say that I support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, one does not quite know how to answer the economic theories advanced by the hon. member for Walmer. From what he said in his speech—he must correct me if I am wrong—it would appear that because one adopts a unitary system it immediately means that one is going to conceal information—not make it readily available— and that one is going to increase taxation. This appears to be the logic of what he said. [Interjections.] I do not know whether either the hon. the Minister or I should give him a lesson in elementary economics, but I should like to put a few suggestions to him. Perhaps one could start by deciding what the expenditure in any particular year happens to be. This would include amounts for social pensioners as well as all other amounts he would want to include. One should then perhaps decide on the sources from which one is to obtain this money. A certain amount of money will be forthcoming from taxation but there will be a shortfall at the end of it. That shortfall or deficit is the important factor and one would have to make it up by means of loans. One puts oneself into a straightjacket by saying that one can only use revenue; that only rands one gets in tax can only be used for social welfare and that only rands one obtains through the medium of a loan can only be used for capital works. If one puts oneself in a straightjacket of this nature, one goes back to either the ’thirties or the ’forties. However, one is certainly not in line with modern budgeting. That is the only thing I wish to say in this respect.

I want to say immediately that we support the Government on the concept of unitary budgeting. We think it is the correct thing to do. We do not share the reservations of the hon. members to my right. I shall not motivate my remarks in this regard as I think this was done very well by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I want to lave the matter at that.

The second point that was mentioned was that this Bill was a consolidation of various other financial measures. As far as it goes, this is also something to be welcomed. However, this Bill goes beyond being just a measure to enable a new form of budgeting system to come about. It is also more than just a measure which seeks to consolidate old financial legislation. This Bill is essentially an enabling Bill; it enables the hon. the Minister and the Executive to appropriate and use certain funds and to incur certain liabilities. There are also many other powers granted to the Executive in terms of this Bill.

When we talk about an enabling Bill which, empowers the Executive to allocate and utilize funds, I think that we must consider the third law of Campion on financial procedure. I am referring to his remarks in regard to the legislative authorization and appropriation of charges. I should like to quote just one short paragraph from The Politics of Financial Control by Gordon Reid. He states—

If we go back to the times when the Westminister system was in its infancy, the King or the Crown would forward his or its estimates to Parliament. Parliament would get rid of the Speaker because he had been nominated by the King and then sat in committee in order to reduce the estimates. This was their function—to reduce the estimates and, once this was agreed upon, to impose taxation. However, things have changed a great deal since then. I suppose the main thing that has changed is the fact that we no longer have a Crown which forwards its estimates. This is now done by the Executive which is part of this House. The Executive is here in this House in the form of the Cabinet Ministers. Moreover, the Executive is backed by a party system which has a majority in the House and this is ensured by the whip structure. One therefore has the situation where the people who are asking this House to appropriate money are part and parcel of the system. In fact they can demand and take because of the system that we have, all the moneys they want. We as ordinary members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive have a function to fulfil. The hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned this function yesterday in his speech. He said that we have to sanction the appropriation of those funds, that we have to satisfy ourselves that those moneys are effectively spent and that we also have the privilege, if we as a House so desire, of withholding funds from the Government. These are functions which we have in relation to the expenditure by the Executive of public funds.

I want now to come back to the Bill before us and to repeat again that it is an enabling legislation. It enables the Treasury to go about its business as it deems fit in order to carry out the business of government. Something else has happened since the days of yore and that is that the running of a government has become a highly complicated process. It is something which goes far beyond the simplistic measures which one took many years ago. It has therefore been felt by Parliament—not only this Parliament but other parliaments similarly structured—that it is necessary to give the Executive certain authority. In conferring this authority Parliament passes an Act—it can only be done by an Act— enabling the Executive to assume certain authority in order to keep the wheels of government turning without having to come back to Parliament. However, like all “Rules of law”, we see it being eroded. We see that what happens is that an authority which is given very reluctantly initially by Parliament to the Executive is subsequently either extended or that decisions which were to be taken by the State President are delegated to the hon. the Minister. We also see that decisions which are delegated from the State President to the hon. the Minister are now further delegated to heads of departments. We have the dilemma—and we must accept it—that there is a situation in which the demands of the Government are such that, in running the affairs of State, while the Treasury does everything in its power to see that things run smoothly there is, however, also conflict with us as ordinary members of Parliament. I am not only talking now about hon. members of the Opposition; I am talking about all members of Parliament on both sides of the House. It is actually in conflict with our duties as members of Parliament. Sir, in this Bill once again control is being taken away from this Parliament. On issues where we lost control previously, where we agreed to give certain discretionary powers to the executive, we find that that is being taken one stage further. Where we asked previously that certain things should be reported to us in a certain way, we find that that right is being eroded. One finds many instances in this particular Bill where the rule of law of finance, as Mr. Gordon Reid called it, has in fact been eroded and is being eroded.

Are you going to oppose the Bill?

Sir, this is a situation that we in these benches cannot go along with. I am not going to deal with the Bill clause by clause because we intend to move certain amendments in the Committee Stage in an attempt to redress this situation, but for the information of the hon. the Minister I want to say that we are opposed, inter alia, to all those clauses which enable the executive in their sole discretion to prescribe the manner in which information must be presented to this House.

Are you for or against the Bill?

We are opposed to those clauses which enable the executive to spend excessive sums of money without parliamentary sanction. We are opposed to those clauses which enable the executive to sanction the spending of money without a satisfactory, prescribed method of reporting such expenditure to Parliament. We are against those measures which enable the executive to undertake liabilities without either the prior consent of Parliament and/ or the obligation to inform Parliament in a satisfactory way as to the nature and the extent of the obligations assumed. We are against those clauses which reduce Parliament’s effective control over public funds —I refer here to the question of delegated powers and the relinquishing of previous safeguards—and we are against all those clauses which further reduce the control of Parliament over expenditure. For these reasons, Sir, I would like to move the following amendment, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very glad to hear that the Reformists at least have taken a line on this particular Bill. As you know, Sir, we have heard from the Progressive Party that they support the unitary system of budgeting, but we have not heard from them at all what their attitude is towards this Bill. In fact, the hon. member for Johannesburg North said that he reserved his position. He is first going to see what happens, and having seen what happens he will then decide exactly what he is going to do. At least my hon. friends from the Reform Party had the courage to say that they felt that this Bill should not be passed. Sir, we can support the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg because it is entirely in line with what we have been saying from these benches all along. Sir, I must say, too, that I am terribly disappointed in the Nationalist Party. It is clear that either their members have been bludgeoned into silence by the Cabinet, or else the Whips have deliberately kept them out of the debate.

You chaps talk so much.

Sir, does the hon. the Minister accept that this is an important piece of legislation that we have before us here this afternoon? The hon. the Minister nods his head. It is so important that a Nationalist Party Whip had to go and encourage a member on that side to participate in this debate for 10 minutes. The hon. the Minister himself, when he introduced the Bill, spoke for no more than eight minutes, so the Government regards this measure as being of such importance that they as a party have spent 18 minutes debating this Bill.

You got the explanatory memorandum.

Yes, we got the explanatory memorandum, and I want to reiterate what the hon. member for Constantia has said. We appreciate that explanatory memorandum very much, we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister and his department and we congratulate his department for the way in which this memorandum was drawn up. It has been a great help to us in studying this intricate piece of legislation. Perhaps, Sir, the reason why Nationalist members are not participating in this debate is that this measure is too intricate for them; they do not understand it, and perhaps that is why the hon. member for Johannesburg North has not adopted an attitude yet. He is waiting to see what is going to happen; that is why he has reserved his position. Perhaps he too did not understand it. I want to say here and now that I do not make myself out to be an economist. I do not even claim that I understand all about this legislation, but I want to say that there are certain aspects of it which I do understand and which I do not like. [Interjection.]

Order! Now hon. members are becoming frivolous.

The reason why I am participating in the debate is because there are certain aspects of this legislation that I am not happy about and which I do not like at all. That is why I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia and also the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg. I believe that there are aspects of this legislation which should not be approved. Until such time as the hon. the Minister does what he has been asked to do in these two amendments, we will vote against this Bill. There are other reasons as well. We have accepted the passing of certain powers from the State President to both the Minister and the Treasury. We are fully appreciative of the administrative difficulties which arose in the past as outlined in the explanatory memorandum. We can only hope that this is going to lead to more efficiency in the financing and in the control of the financing of the Republic. However, I am afraid that I cannot support all the new powers which are given both to the Minister and to the Treasury.

I particularly deplore the diminution of Parliament’s powers and the usurping of its functions. I refer particularly here to clause 6. Clause 6(2) of the Bill states that the amounts appearing in “Column 2” of a schedule to an appropriation Act in respect of any vote shall, subject to the provisions of section 7(1)(b)(ii), not be exceeded, and savings thereon may, with the approval of the Minister, be applied towards the defrayment of any other expenditure for which insufficient appropriation has been made under that vote. Let us examine this subclause. What is a Column 2 item? A Column 2 item is an item which has been voted for specifically by a Committee of this House. It has approved a specific sum of money for a specific object. When that money has not been used in the past, it has been returned to the coffers and has been re-allocated by Parliament. What is the position now? What is the Minister asking for here today? He is asking that he be given the authority, or that the Treasury should have the authority, with his approval, to apply those funds to the defrayment of any other expenditure, not merely a Column 2 item.

Under that vote.

Yes, under that vote. The hon. the Minister’s point is quite valid. The money can be used for any other item under that vote. However, when we go back to clause 6(1)(a) of the Bill we find that when money has been appropriated by an appropriation Act, the Minister may approve that a saving under a main division of a vote be applied towards the defrayment of excess expenditure under another main division. In other words, he can take it from one division to another division, as long as it is under that vote, under clause 6(2). However, then it states “or of expenditure under a new main division of the same vote”. In other words, he can now introduce a completely new item, one which Parliament has never seen. He can take funds and apply them to an item which has never been before Parliament and for which Parliament has never given its approval, not even as one of these R50 items where expenditure is approved in principle. Here we have the usurping of the function of Parliament by the Treasury and by the Minister. As I say, when this is read with clause 6(2), we find that not only can money which has not been spent and which Parliament has said shall be spent on a specific item, be taken and used under another head, but it can be taken and applied to a completely new item which Parliament has never seen or heard of. Sir, for that reason alone, if for no other reason. I believe that we should oppose this legislation unless the hon. the Minister will give us an undertaking that he will amend this provision to ensure that the control will remain with Parliament. I believe this is where the control of expenditure should remain, not in the hands of the hon. the Minister and the Treasury. We accept that under certain circumstances the control over certain expenditure must be in their hands; we have made that clear. However, I am afraid we cannot accept this sort of provision.

Sir, savings may be applied, as I have said, to any other expenditure for which insufficient appropriation has been made. There is also the provision in clause 6(1) for a new main division. Here there has been no approval in principle by Parliament that money should be spent on that particular item. Mind you, when I say this, I am of course assuming that the Estimates are going to look as they have in the past. We do not even know what the Estimates will look like in future and here the hon. the Minister is asking the House for a blank cheque this afternoon. I am referring to clause 4, subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) provides that—

Subsection (4) reads as follows—

I do not know what the hon. the Minister has in mind with “a form determined by him.” I see that the hon. the Minister has had a look at the third report of the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa, the commission of inquiry generally known as the Franzsen Commission. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to page 40 of that report where the commission sets out a suggested type of statement which should be presented to Parliament. I want to say that I support the hon. member for Walmer entirely in all that he has said. He referred to the fact that we are unaware under the present system of exactly what backlog there is, exactly how far behind we are and exactly where we are going. It would also appear that there is no planning for the future; or if there is, it is not apparent from the statements as they appear before us today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister at least to consider the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission in that respect.

In terms of clause 8(1), after Parliament has approved of certain funds, certain disbursements and certain expenditure, the Treasury may withhold—with the consent of the hon. the Minister again—the expenditure as approved by Parliament, or it may limit the expenditure as approved by Parliament or it may suspend any further payment of moneys voted by Parliament for that particular purpose. Then, under subsection (3) of clause 8 we find—I think I had better read it to the House—

In other words, once again this can be used for any purpose. This is not even limited to the particular Vote concerned. There might, however, be a limitation to the Vote concerned if we read this with section 6. But the fact remains that—

In other words, an amount which has been voted by Parliament, which has been withheld by the Treasury and which has not been given to the specific department to spend, can now be taken by the Treasury to be used for some other purpose. Again, this is a very wide power which is being given to the Treasury and to the hon. the Minister, and it is a diminution of the powers of this House, which I believe is the body which should be supreme when it comes to deciding what money shall be expended and how it shall be spent.

Clause 24 of the Bill provides for the repayment of loans. In the past this required a Part Appropriation Bill or an Appropriation Bill of some sort or another. It will no longer be necessary to get an Appropriation Bill through. Parliament as this will be done purely and simply by the hon. the Minister and the Treasury.

We now come to the question of the Controller and Auditor-General. In the past the Controller and Auditor-General was appointed by the State President. In terms of the Act which is repealed by this legislation, it is provided that he should hold office during good behaviour or until retirement age in terms of the Public Service Act. In terms of that legislation, the Controller and Auditor-General could be removed from office only after an address to the State President praying for his removal has been approved by both, Houses of Parliament. As such he was an officer of Parliament and enjoyed much the same position as a judge. He was not subject to the whim of any individual, of any political party, or even of the Cabinet. But what do we find now? We find in this Bill before the House that it is provided that the Auditor-General—we approve the removal of the title “Controller”, because we accept that he no longer does any controlling—is to be appointed for a period of not more than five years and that he can be reappointed. I am afraid that I cannot accept that this part should be subject to the political pressures which this provision will create. His reappointment, his whole future will, in fact, depend upon the goodwill of the governing party with all the pressures which arise out of this. How will he be able to be fearlessly critical and objective in reporting on the affairs of State when he knows that his future depends on the goodwill of the Cabinet against whom he may possibly be reporting? As long as the threat of no reappointment hangs over his head, how can he be objective? I believe that this is a bad provision, especially in the light of the new and added burdens which are being placed on him and in view of the additional powers and duties which he is given. It is his job to see to it that the money which we in Parliament vote is spent efficiently and properly and not only that it is spent as it is appropriated by us, but also in terms of clause 42. I want to quote this, because I believe that it is most important to put it on record. In terms of clause 42 (1)(b) the Auditor-General will have—

Clause 47 provides the following:

From this it can be gathered that this man is to be given tremendous responsibility, that he is being given added and greater responsibility. I believe that this can only lead to greater efficiency, provided we remove from over his head the sword of Damocles which will be hanging there all the time as long as we retain the five-year clause, because he will not be sure that he will be doing what his bosses want him to do. He will not be sure that if he does his duty honestly and fearlessly, he will not prejudice his own position in the future. I believe, and I want to pay tribute here to the Controllers and Auditors-General we have had in the past, that they have done their job fearlessly. I believe they have done their duty in the best interests of the Republic of South Africa and I want to pay tribute to them. I believe that what we are going to need in the future are men of a calibre who will fearlessly and courageously and honestly carry out their duty. We need strong men and men who will be free of the fear of victimization if they do their job properly. But we cannot have them if we have this five-year clause, because his appointment will be not by the favour of Parliament, as now, but by the favour of the governing party, the Cabinet.

I now come to the last aspect of this particular Bill and another reason why we are opposing it, namely the unitary budgetary system. As I have said, the Progs and the Reformists have indicated their point of view. As far back as 1971 we stated our attitude towards this system in this House, when we said—

That paragraph in the report of the Franzsen Commission must be read in conjunction with paragraph 174, which quotes the Minister’s predecessor:

Our economy may at this stage not be in a relatively primitive stage, but I believe that the capacity of the public to pay tax is no better today than it was at the time to which this statement refers. I believe that there is no country in the world which is at a similar stage of development as ours, which is still in the stage of developing such projects as the Bantustans, Richards Bay, Newcastle, Saldanha Bay, Sasol 2 and Iscor all of which are capital works which the hon. the Minister now intends financing from the Revenue Vote, which adopts a unitary budgetting system. I believe that it would be utterly wrong to do that at this stage. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Walmer, we cannot accept that this should be done out of revenue to the detriment of the people who are in need of social services. Loan levies and foreign borrowing will be used only for loan repayments. That is the way we are going and if we project what is happening now, the amount of taxation must continue to rise and I believe that can only be to the detriment of the people of South Africa. This is inflationary and to the detriment of those who are in need, particularly those who need social services because taxation, either direct or indirect, is of course passed on to those people.

I regret that I cannot accept the Bill as it is. I believe there is a lot of merit in it, but unless the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to accepting the proposals which have been made by my hon. friends from Constantia and Walmer and by myself, we cannot support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear at the outset that in my opinion, and indeed in the opinion of this side of the House, this Bill is very important indeed and is really a basic piece of legislation. The fact that not so many hon. members on this side of the House took part in the debate as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South would apparently have liked, certainly does not mean that we do not regard this Bill as being basic legislation. I also want to point out to the hon. member that the subject of the Bill has been very thoroughly discussed by a Select Committee. If the Bill had not been important we would not have taken such a step, after all. In the second place, as I have said by way of interjection, an explanatory memorandum has been issued on the subject and I believe that this memorandum testifies to very thorough work. This all indicates that we consider the Bill to be very important legislation indeed. Since such a thorough explanatory memorandum has been issued and since such a thorough discussion was held in the Select Committee. I thought that we would not necessarily have to discuss every clause of the Bill here.

†I want to leave no doubt in the mind of anybody about the extreme importance of this measure. How can one think of anything more important than having a properly drafted Exchequer and Audit Act? It goes to the very roots of our existence in this House.

I want to refer to what some hon. members have said. The hon. member for Constantia has stated, correctly, that this Bill consists of two general parts. The one part deals with the consolidation of a whole number of measures which are already on the Statute Book and seeks to incorporate in legislation a number of procedures which have become a convention in our financial administration over the years. On the other hand, we have the move to adopt from next year and the years that follow a unitary budget. This unitary budget will give us an opportunity to make of our budget a far more effective financial instrument and a much more effective instrument of policy, because we seek to recast its form in terms of a budget of objectives, as we call it. We want to have the purpose of the expenditure clearly portrayed, Vote by Vote. As it is put in the Afrikaans version of the explanatory memorandum, it is a “doelwit-begrotingstelsel”.

First of all, I want to deal with one or two earlier points made by the hon. member for Constantia before referring to the unitary budget, which is extremely important. He took exception to the fact that we were seeking to give the Treasury a little more time to prepare various statements. In the one case it is a period of four to six months and in the other case a period of from three to five months. I think the hon. member said we were taking the easy way out in giving this extra time. Surely this is not the case. These periods of time were laid down in 1911. If one looks at the budget, one will see that we earn more revenue on cigarettes and tobacco alone today than the extent of the whole budget of 1911 was worth. There is an enormous amount of work involved at present. It is not only a question of size or the order of magnitude of all the aggregates and sub-aggregates; it is also a question of the proliferation of votes which must be taken into account. We must take into account the tremendous amount of detail which is involved in the accounts of the different departments. I think that this is a very reasonable request, but so far as it is practicable the Treasury will produce these statements in less time, although we set a maximum time. We do not say that it will take five and six months respectively: we say that that is the maximum. I really feel that this is a reasonable provision and, in terms of hard practice, an absolutely essential extension which we must allow.

Talking about the appointment of the Auditor-General, the hon. member did not like the idea that he should be appointed by the State President. He wanted Parliament to appoint him. Of course, we have not changed the procedure. It is a re-enactment of the existing position. In the past he has always been appointed by the Governors-General,now the State President, and we are keeping it as it was. I shall come back to one or two matters affecting the Auditor-General in a moment.

Then quite a number of hon. members referred to the savings on column 2 items referred to in clause 6(2). At the moment, if we do not spend the full amount on the column-2 items, if is simply frozen; nobody can use it. All we are saying is that these amounts are statutory amounts, and all we ask is that, if the full amounts are not spent, the Minister should have the discretion to use the unspent amounts for some other essential purpose under the relevant vote. If one does not spend it in that way, it is frozen and we have to ask for extra money for the purpose in the additional appropriation. This gives us just that little bit more flexibility. It concerns a small part of the total budget, as the hon. member will see if he looks at the figures. We feel that this makes the budget more effective as it gives us slightly more flexibility. Nevertheless, it has to be done with the approval of the Minister. I want to point out again that this is substantially a re-enactment of the existing position. It is a re-enactment of section 19(4) of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1956, as amended by the Finance Act of 1966. The hon. member will find that that is substantially the same sort of provision.

Taking it seriatim, I then come to clause 35(1) to which the hon. member for Constantia referred. That clause stipulates that, where the Reserve Bank has itself given a guarantee to an institution, the Government should be asked to guarantee the Reserve Bank. I want to point out again that clause 35(1) is in fact a re-enactment of section 1(a) of the Finance Act of 1966, as amended by the Finance Act of 1974. Then, we seek a standing authority here, and that is envisaged in subsection (2) of clause 35. Again, in the light of experience, it is felt that this is essential and that it is in fact very reasonable to ask Parliament to give us this standing authority under subsection (2).

Then, while dealing with the hon. member for Constantia, I should like to come to the unitary budget system. He is of course strongly opposed to this proposed new form of the budget. It is really a system; it is more than just a form. He said, and other hon. members of the Opposition made the same point, that this is not the time for this sort of innovation. As was also said by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Walmer, the hon. member said that our economy had not yet reached the stage of maturity where it could adopt a unitary budget system instead of having a separate Loan Account and Revenue Account budget. I should like to ask the hon. member if he knows what stage countries like Great Britain, the United States and Sweden had reached when they adopted this system, which is an extremely well-established budgetary system in the world today. We are not an undeveloped economy. We have a very large industrialized sector and we are possibly the world’s number one mining economy. We have a very versatile economy and we have reached a stage of considerable development. If this is not the time to adopt a more effective and efficient budgetary system, particularly with an eye to policymaking, when one earth will we reach that stage? I should like to remind the hon. member and other hon. members of this House that this is not a sudden proposal which has been introduced in Parliament. On the contrary, this step has been in the melting-pot and under careful consideration for more than 20 years. In 1954’55 it was mentioned in Parliament by the then Minister of Finance. In the 1967’68 financial year it was again mentioned in Parliament by the then hon. Minister of Finance. We have been working on this very closely and senior members of the Treasury have been abroad to see precisely how this system is applied. Everything has been very carefully considered and this is in fact a very thoroughly considered measure. I would say that, if we are ever going to adopt this type of budgeting, this is the time to do so.

The hon. member for Constantia—I think other hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Walmer, have said the same—said that if we moved to a unitary system the result would be higher taxation. Why should this system in itself lead to higher taxation? After all, we are putting the two forms of expenditure together and the deficit that may eventuate between expenditure and revenue would then have to be looked for in the form of loans, i.e. loan financing, loan revenue. Higher tax revenues might be possible, as our tax basis is broadening all the time. The amount of taxation that the fiscus in South Africa receives year by year is increasing; there is no question about that. In itself however it does not necessarily mean that this new system will result in higher taxation. My facts are quite correct as I have looked into the matter. I would like to finish my answer to what the hon. member for Constantia has said by saying that the whole thing comes back to the view of the Opposition on the financing of capital expenditure. Repeatedly it has been said by them that capital expenditure must be financed out of loan capital, from loans. Why, if our revenue is buoyant, should we not use part of our current revenue as so many other countries in the world do in order to finance capital works if we can do it without fear of any undue hardship? It is done every day by sound companies. In fact, if a company can do so it is immensely relieved. If it can earn enough to finance its expansion, finance capital facilities out of its revenue, it is in a very sound position indeed. There is no difference in the principle. What applies there also applies to the financial affairs of the State. I do not follow the argument of the hon. member; I have great difficulty with it. The more we can set aside without undue hardship—we have to look at these things and strike a balance; we cannot exploit the public will-nilly—we would certainly be in a very desirable position if we can, within this formula, finance capital expenditure out of revenue. We have, in fact, been doing it for years; for years we have been putting funds from revenue into the Loan Account whenever we could afford it.

At what levels will the hon. the Minister place taxation and social benefits?

I would like to answer that question at once. I wanted to come to that in my discussion of the speech of the hon. member for Walmer. It would be absurd to accuse this Government of seeking to adopt this kind of budget in order to ignore the just claims of any class of the community to its rightful share of benefits. We can look at the position of pensioners in this regard as this is a classic example in times of inflation. What Government has done more for the pensioners than this Government, particularly during the last year? These people had an increase last December and they have had another increase which will come into effect as from October 1975 amounting to R7 per month. The hon. members on the other side of the House must look at their record when they handle these matters. What happened to the pensioners when they ere in power? The record is a very sad one. I do not want to get involved in an argument about this, but the facts are there. We will certainly not use any money out of the unitary budget, or any other kind of budget, which should rightfully, in our judgment, go to the pensioners when they were in power? body else. We would certainly not divert the money for any capital purposes at the expense of these people. We have never done this. I would like to give hon. members the assurance that this will never happen because one of the very first things we do when we compile a budget is to say: “What are the essential items we must provide for, particularly as a relief to persons who cannot withstand the ravages of inflation?” We spent hours on that and we pushed that figure to the maximum consonant with these other urgent demands on the budget. Sir, it is quite wrong and quite unjustified to say that we are prepared under this new system of budgeting to do things that will be to the detriment of any class of society, particularly people like pensioners and the aged. That is what the hon. member said.

Do you think that the social pensioners are getting enough at the moment?

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple question. What is enough to a social pensioner?

Enough to live on.

There are social pensioners today who are finding it very hard to make ends meet; there are others who are very much better off, and I am delighted to know this. I know some of them. Sir, we are doing our very best. Do you know what the improvement amounts to that we granted in this latest budget as from 1 October? It amounts to R29 million. That is the additional amount that we are giving to social pensioners in half a year. It amounts to R58 million a year. Sir, if you add up all the benefits that the United Party Government gave to pensioners over a period of 20 years, you will find that they do not even amount to R58 million. [Interjection.]

Order! I cannot allow these continual interjections.

Sir, I do not wish to be diverted from the main part of this important issue. If I were to answer the hon. member for Walmer fully, I would have a great deal to say, because I thought his speech yesterday was reckless in the extreme. I wrote down a number of his statements, but I do not want to go into them now.

Sir, it has been said that under the unitary system of budgeting we will be lumping everything together. We have already explained that in the money columns the capital items will be set out for everyone to see. Capital items will be identified, and we will go further and also identify transfer payments, i.e. transfers made to other departments. Those will also be clearly defined and identified in the money columns. There is no question of hiding information, as has been suggested by one or two hon. members. In fact, the unitary budget will make the position clearer. It will be a more meaningful financial document than the existing one. There is no question about that.

I then come to the argument that we may be wishing in some of these clauses to by-pass Parliament or to derogate from the crucially important role of Parliament in financial measures. Our intention is anything but that. No Minister is more mercilessly exposed to the full glare of parliamentary publicity than the Minister of Finance and hon. members have the fullest right to criticism. That is a right that we jealously guard. There are ample opportunities for decisions and measures taken by the Minister to be debated in this House. In the debate on the Appropriation Bills this House has the fullest opportunity to discuss not only financial policy, but matters of detail affecting expenditure and revenue. The same applies to the Income Tax Bill, the Customs and Excise Bill, the Finance Bill and all other financial measures. I do not want to go into a great deal of detail, except to say that Parliament has the fullest opportunity to review in detail any decision or measure taken by the Minister of Finance. The fact that this is an absolutely correct statement is clearly reflected also in this legislation.

Sir, I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. It was a pleasant experience to find that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was agreeing with us on an important financial measure. I thought that he put the case for a unitary budget rather effectively. He did not complain about the unitary budget. His strictures, if I may call them that, referred to certain of the individual clauses of the Bill. I think I have referred to a few in passing, but I would like to say that in a number of these cases the provisions to which he referred are in fact either entirely or very largely re-enactments of existing provisions. There are one or two cases where we do go further, for instance where the Minister in future, instead of the State President, will authorize unauthorized expenditure and where he gets the power to do so up to 2% instead of 1% of the total amount in the applicable Appropriation Act. On present figures, that would be roughly R110 million. Sir, having regard to the enormous increase in the size of the budget, I think the hon. member will probably agree with me that R110 million is not a very big figure, but on the other hand we do not want to make it too big because we want to curb the Minister’s discretion in that important field.

I then come to the question of the Minister’s powers of delegation under clause 36. Once again this is very substantially a reenactment of existing provisions, as the hon. member will find if he looks at section 3 of the Finance Act of 1968, for instance. But I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that in this Bill the limitations on the powers which can be delegated are in fact being extended. There is a more strict limitation than there has been hitherto. The hon. member will find that the powers of delegation are in fact strictly limited, more so than under the existing position.

*Sir, I want to thank the hon. member for Sunnyside for a very well-considered speech. I think that he made a few very important points and that he stated the advantages of the unitary budget system very concisely.

†Sir, coming to the Auditor-General, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that he did not like the fact that under this Bill the Auditor-General will, if this measure is approved, be appointed by the State President for five years and that he could then be re-appointed. If the hon. member looks at chapter IV, he will find that clause 41(6) says—

It is worth while just to look at those subsections. Subsection (7)(a) says—

Paragraph (b) says—

Sir, I think the mechanics and the controls are there. I want to assure the hon. member that we have every regard for the sovereignty of Parliament. I think that sanction is pretty far-reaching.

Sir, other hon. members have raised a number of other points which can more appropriately be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I would like to say that this measure was drawn up with the utmost care after very long deliberations over many years. It certainly never occurred to us to try to reduce or to by-pass the powers of Parliament, and I think on a fair reading of this Bill hon. members will find that in a number of important respects we have in fact increased the effectiveness of parliamentary control. There are one or two cases where we have given more power to the Minister, but that has been done in the light of hard experience where we think that it will add to the effectiveness of our whole system of financial administration.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet. M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux. Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar. L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; 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, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—38: Aronson, T.; Barlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Waddell,G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Persons whose earnings at present exceed R5 460 per annum are excluded from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Bill and as soon as a worker earns more than this amount, he is no longer a contributor to the fund, and can no longer build up further credits for the purpose of unemployment benefits. This maximum wage ceiling came into operation on 9 July 1974.

A maximum wage ceiling was prescribed in the Act because only workers who earn less than that maximum wage are regarded as persons who should be provided for by means of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. However, owing to wage increases, it is necessary to review the maximum wage ceiling from time to time.

The Unemployment Insurance Board, on which both employers and employees are represented, appointed a special sub-committee to review the Act and, if necessary to recommend amendments. This sub-committee has already made certain recommendations which have been accepted by the board. However, some of the recommendations will involve considerable additional amendments and result in a comprehensive Bill which it will not be possible to introduce during the present session. The board was informed accordingly and in these circumstances it requested that the wage ceiling be amended during this session.

The board recommended unanimously that the wage ceiling be raised to R6 760 per annum, viz. R563-33 per month or R130 per week. This figure is based on the increase in the cost of living from the date on which the last decision was taken to increase the maximum, calculated to 31 December 1974, which means an increase of 16,8% plus an allowance of about 5% expected increase in the cost of living until such time as the new maximum can be made operative.

The board further recommended that the amount by which the present wage ceiling should be raised, be added to the present group 14, which is the highest group. Group 14 will then include persons who earn more than R3 406 per annum up to a maximum of R6 760 per annum. No change in the existing grouping, contributions or benefits are envisaged for the present.

The exact financial implications of the envisaged amendment are not easy to calculate since at this stage, no indication can be given of the number of contributors who will again be brought within the ambit of the Act. As far as the State is concerned, the additional expenditure is estimated at about R400 000 per annum, since under section 29(2) the State has to make a contribution equal to 25% of the total amount paid in contributions to the fund by employers and employees. Section 29(1) further provides that temporary workers in the public service should also contribute to the fund. It follows, therefore, that the Government departments and provincial administrations who employ them must also make a contribution in respect of such workers. The State’s contribution as an employer will be minimal, however, since with a few exceptions, employers at a notch between R5 460 and R6 760 are on the permanent establishment, and are therefore excluded as contributors.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to clauses 2 and 3. Under section 29(10) of the Act, no contributions or other payments due to the fund by an employer, and no contributions or other payments paid to the fund by an employer are recoverable after the expiration of seven years after such contributions have been paid or payments made. Furthermore, section 32(1) provides that every employer is required to keep for seven years certain prescribed particulars in respect of every contributor employed by him.

Representations have been received from certain employers’ organizations to reduce this period from seven to three years as in the case of other industrial legislation. The department, too, is having difficulty in finding adequate storage space for old files. The possible loss of income for the fund will be small since there are few employers who can neglect to meet their obligations for a period longer than three years without being traced.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is desirable that the amendments be put in operation as soon as possible, particularly those relating to the wage ceiling, since this is in the interests of the workers, and I trust, therefore, that they meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has indicated the reasons why this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act is necessary. We on this side of the House intend supporting the hon. the Minister at the Second Reading of this Bill, as we believe that this is an improvement on the existing position. I think if one looks at the legislation concerning the Unemployment Insurance Fund right from its inception as the result of the Act of 1946—it came into operation on 1 January 1947—one is struck by the fact that there have been numerous amendments which, of course, resulted in a consolidating Bill in 1966 which in turn from time to time has also been amended, particularly in so far as the income ceiling is concerned whereby persons continue to be contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Indeed, this Bill which increases this ceiling by an amount of R1 300 per annum, viz. increasing it from R5 460 to R6 760 per annum, indicates the vast loss in the purchasing power of money and certainly indicates the increases in wages that have occurred over the past few years. For example, the consolidating legislation of 1966 had a ceiling of R2 860 per annum whereas this legislation which is now before us aims to increase that ceiling to R6 760 per annum. This we believe is necessary as this legislation is regarded by the workers of South Africa as a very vital part of the social security that is offered to workers. It is only right that those persons who have made contributions to the fund and who have built up the fund, I think, to the extent of R175 million, as a result of increases in their particular rates of emoluments should continue to enjoy the benefits of having been contributors for a number of years. It does happen that in today’s changing times persons sometimes find themselves unemployed, even though they are earning fairly high salaries, owing to mergers taking place in the industrial and commercial field. Sometimes these people have found that it is necessary for them to claim unemployment benefits. We know too that the benefits are not only restricted to unemployment. There are also illness allowances, maternity benefits and benefits to the dependants of deceased contributors. That is why it is important that these people should continue to enjoy the right to be considered to fall within the purview of this Act to enable their terms of employment to act as a basis for earning credits and building up their credits in the fund.

The position of persons at the other end of the scale is not being altered in any way in terms of this legislation. We welcome the statement by the hon. the Minister that the Unemployment Insurance Board is considering various aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act and that it is possible, at a later stage, that further amendments will be submitted to this House for its consideration. We on this side of the House welcome this and believe that it is desirable and indeed important that every step should be taken to ensure that the social security legislation that we do have on our Statute Book is amended from time to time to meet changing needs.

The hon. the Minister also referred to clauses 2 and 3, which provide for the position as far as records are concerned. When one looks at clause 2 one sees that no contributions or other payments due to the fund under this Act by an employer shall be recoverable after a period of three years, whereas before it was a period of seven years. Difficulties may arise in this regard if one takes into account that there could be certain claims on the fund by an employer over a considerable period of time. In terms of the existing position the period is limited to seven years as far as records are concerned. This period is to be further reduced to three years. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give an indication that where there are such cases, due consideration will be given to this matter; in other words, that there will not be a hasty destruction of records to cover a period of three years once this legislation has been passed by the House. I hope that existing claims will receive the consideration of the hon. the Minister. This is one of the effects of this amending legislation which is now before us.

Clause 3 also deals with the keeping of records and here again the period is reduced from seven years to three years. I am concerned that these might be cases of persons who lodge claims as the dependants of a deceased contributor and who might be prejudiced in this regard. When one looks at the pamphlet issued by the Department of Labour—it is known as UF.100— which is a summary of the main provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, one sees that as far as the conditions attached to the payment of benefits to the dependants of deceased contributors are concerned—

The period of 13 weeks during the five years preceding the death of the contributor might be of importance should they wish to investigate particularly the group under which the deceased fell in terms of the contributions which he had made. If any records have been destroyed for the preceding period of three years, it is possible that a dependant who claims benefits in respect of the deceased person’s contributions may be prejudiced. As has been indicated a claim must be lodged within a period of three years of the death of a contributor, but in many instances it takes a considerable amount of time to dispose of the claim administratively. We know that sometimes the investigation which follows the submission of a claim is laborious because the exact entitlement of the deceased contributor has to be determined. There is therefore the possibility that in the event of the records having been destroyed within a period of three years in terms of the Bill, the claimant may be prejudiced in respect of the benefits which should accrue to him.

The last aspect is the date on which the various provisions will come into operation. Last year amendments which were effected in the first session of Parliament came into operation on 1 July of that year. We do hope that the amendments which are now being effected will be dealt with expeditiously after certain administrative details have received the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department. This will ensure that those persons who have enjoyed cover in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act will continue to do so.

The only other comment which we on this side of the House should like to make is that when this legislation is reviewed by the Unemployment Insurance Board again, due consideration should be given to eliminating the differentiation as far as Bantu workers are concerned so as to ensure that all workers are treated on the same basis. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give this suggestion due consideration at the appropriate time. At this stage we on this side of the House wish to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support the Second Reading of the Bill which deals, as we have heard, with a number of fairly minor amendments to the principal Act. I should like to take this opportunity to endorse the words of the previous speaker that we welcome the news from the hon. the Minister that the Unemployment Board will consider the position of other workers who are not covered by unemployment insurance at the moment. In this connection I think particularly of casual or contract workers who are not covered by unemployment insurance at the moment. In this connection I think particularly of casual or contract workers who have no cover at all. Whilst one appreciates the enormous difficulty surrounding this question, nevertheless one hopes that it will also receive expeditious treatment.

There are only two main provisions contained in the Bill as we understand it. In the first instance there is clause 1 which deals with the amount and in the second instance there is clause 2 which deals with the period which is now being reduced from seven to three years. We support this as a very necessary change. We again make the point that it is unfortunate that in making these changes we could not also change the distinction in section 1 of the principal Act which refers to White workers on the one hand and Bantu workers on the other. With those words we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to record our support for this Bill as well and to underline what has been said by the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Pinelands. I also want to endorse the request to the hon. the Minister to see what can be done in order to remove discrimination between Black and non-Black.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the support given to this measure. Actually, it deserves that support. In fact, it is quite natural and understandable that it should enjoy this support. I should like to reply to the questions put and the critical remarks that have been made.

The first aspect I want to deal with is the issue of the reduction of the period of seven years to three years as far as records are concerned. The hon. member for Umbilo and the member who spoke after him referred to this. The fear was expressed that the workers could be prejudiced thereby. We did in fact give the matter our full consideration and in order to try and avoid this, we are going to amend regulation 11(2) which deals with the contributor’s report card, so as to provide that the employer will have to keep additional details up to date. Although the period will be shorter, the employers will still have to keep up to date particulars indicating the date the employee entered their employment, the date on which he terminated his employment and his earnings for the 52 weeks before his services were terminated. The records will now be of such a nature as to be of use for a very long time and may serve as a reference. In this way we shall be in a position to make provision for the problems raised by the hon. member in regard to clauses 2 and 3.

A few speakers referred to Bantu who are restricted in terms of this legislation. Those who receive an amount of less than R10-50 per week, or rather R546 per annum, are excluded from this provision. In the first place, I want to mention that the statistics indicate that already in 1974, the position was that of the 2½ million contributors, 1 085 000 were Bantu. We are all aware of how the wages of the Black people in this country have risen. If hon. members only think in terms of the real wages paid to Black workers in this country today, it would be quite a task to determine how many really earn less than R10-50 per week today. At the moment the number is minimal, although I am unfortunately unable to supply the hon. member with the figures at the moment. However, hon. members are fully aware of what the wages of the vast majority of Bantu workers amount to. Most of them get more than R10-50 per week, and therefore, in practice, the vast majority of Black workers in our country already belong to this Fund. I do not want to leave hon. members under any mistaken impression as regards the abolition of this provision. It is a contentious matter in the Unemployment Insurance Board. The matter has been discussed on more than one occasion by that board, on which both the employers and the trade unions have representation, and it is evident that there are a number of divergent opinions concerning this matter among the members of the Unemployment Insurance Board. The one group feels that it ought to be abolished while another group feels just as strongly that it should be retained in view of the fact that the vast majority of Black workers already belong to the fund, since they earn more than R10-50 per week. This matter will be reconsidered by the board at its next meeting and if the board recommends that it should be abolished, I as the Minister concerned, will naturally move its abolition. However, I felt that I should keep hon. members fully informed as to the fact that there is considerable difference of opinion among the members of that board.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask an assurance from the hon. the Minister that no claims either by the fund or by the employer are going to be prejudiced by this amendment. I ask this because I know of at least one claim which is still outstanding. Perhaps I should declare an interest in it because I am a shareholder in the company concerned. The claim against the fund which is outstanding is in respect of certain moneys paid to it in error. That claim stretches over a period of 20 years. As the Act stands at the moment, obviously the firm can only claim for seven years. When this Bill is promulgated, the provisions in clause 5 will limit the claim to a period of three years. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us an assurance that neither the fund itself—which may be in a similar position in that it has to claiming moneys from employers due for more than three years—nor any employer who have already registered a claim, will be prejudiced in any way by the passing of this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, this measure will be implemented in the spirit in which we implement all our measures, viz. that when we come along with a new measure, it should not prejudice a beneficiary. If the hon. member will give my department and me the specific case to which he referred, we can have a look at it. I might just tell the hon. member that the spirit in which this measure will be administered is such that we do not prejudice claimants.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assurance the hon. the Minister has given.

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—

Right at the outset I should like to point out that everything in this Bill really revolves around one clear principle. The principle I am referring to is that of bringing together what belongs together. There are strong ties of relationship between the inhabitants of the Glen Grey and Herschel districts and the inhabitants of the Transkei. This position is thoroughly appreciated by both Governments concerned, i.e. that of the Ciskei and that of the Transkei, and the matter has received very thorough attention from both these Governments. There was a desire among people of the Glen Grey and Herschel districts—both of which were in the past under the administration of the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly—to secede from the Ciskei and join the Transkei. There was also a desire on the part of the Transkei to have the two areas incorporated.

In this regard I have constantly stated it as the standpoint of our Government that this matter is something which the parties concerned should decide on themselves. As hon. members know, the Xhosas there have their tribal and regional authorities who deliberated on this matter, and they have their own established views on what procedure to adopt in such situations.

As a result of the deliberations which were held it was clearly appreciated that the matter was the responsibility in the first place of the Ciskeian Government and the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly. Consequently the latter two bodies adopted the necessary resolutions earlier this year that the Glen Grey and Herschel districts should be omitted from the Ciskei. In order to give statutory effect to this resolution, Proclamation R95 of 1975 was promulgated on 25 April of this year, in terms of which the two districts would be omitted from the Ciskeian area of jurisdiction, as from a date which would be determined by the State President.

This Bill is the second step in this process, and it regulates the addition to the Transkei of the regional authority areas in the Glen Grey and Herschel districts as from a date which the State President will determine by proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members will note that the excision of the said areas from the Ciskei, as well as the inclusion of the areas in the Transkei, will take place as from dates which will be determined by the State President. This arrangement is necessary because there are certain administrative matters which still have to be disposed of before the processes can be finally implemented. There is no certainty at this stage whether all the inhabitants of the said areas will prefer to throw in their lot with the Transkei, or whether some of the inhabitants might prefer to retain their ties with the Ciskei. To clarify this uncertainty time for negotiation with the parties concerned is required, and if there are people who want to remain incorporated in the Ciskei, time is necessary to acquire and appoint an alternative dwelling-place for them in the Ciskei, and to help them move to it.

Consequently it is the intention that the areas shall for a time, after they have been excised from the Ciskei be administered by my department, i.e. by the South African Bantu Trust, and that during this time the Governments concerned shall on neutral ground, negotiate with the inhabitants of the areas concerning their preferences. The position in regard to such a temporary interim administration has been explained by my department to the parties concerned, to the satisfaction of these parties.

Here I should just like to remind hon. members that additional territory will be made available to the Ciskei homeland as a result of the resolutions adopted by Parliament this year on the acquisition of land in the Ciskei. Ciskeians in the Glen Grey and Herschel districts, who wish to remain under the Ciskei, will then be able to move to parts of these areas, after they have been acquired, areas such as those near or in the Stockenström area for example. One indirect effect of this step is that the Ciskei will be consolidated into one contiguous territory.

For the convenience of hon. members I am briefly going to elucidate the Bill clause by clause now.

Clause 1:

The regional authority area in the Glen Grey district is being included in the Transkei and will, together with the existing Emigrant Tembuland Regional Authority, be known as the Western Tembuland Regional Authority area—we were specifically requested to use this name—while the Regional Authority area in the Herschel district is being included in the existing Maluti Regional Authority area of the Transkei.

Clause 2:

1. (1) Proposed section 3A(l)(a) and (b).

The Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, was promulgated on 30 May 1963. Certain provisions of that Act came into operation on specific occasions, namely upon the date of promulgation or upon the date of the constitution of the first Cabinet of the Transkei, i.e. on 11 December 1963. It is now necessary to adapt those provisions, to which reference is being made in the proposed section 3A(1)(a) and (b), to make provision for the areas which are being included in the Transkei after those said occasions.

1. (2) Proposed section 3A(l)(c) and (d).

The Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, makes provision for the office-bearers and authorities to which reference is being made in the proposed section 3A(1)(c) and (d) that are recognized, appointed or established in terms of laws applicable in the territories comprising the Transkei, as originally defined in the said Act. In view of the inclusion of areas in the Glen Grey and Herschel districts, it is now necessary to make provision for similar office-bearers and authorities that are recognized, appointed or established in terms of the laws applicable in the areas which are being added or which may be added in terms of existing provisions of the said Act.

Clause 3:

1. (1) Subclause (a).

There are three chiefs in the Glen Grey district, and six in the Herschel district. The chiefs concerned, with their tribal authorities, have been requested to indicate in due course whether they prefer to remain in the said districts and become Transkeian citizens, or whether they wish to move to Ciskeian territory. The Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, has to be adjusted to make provision for the chiefs who do in fact prefer to become Transkeian citizens.

1. (2) Subclause (b).

At present the Glen Grey and Herschel districts are being represented by three and two elected members in the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly, respectively, and the number of members of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly is accordingly being increased to regulate representation for these areas.

Clause 4:

This clause follows consequentially on clauses 1 and 3.

Clause 5:

In accordance with assurances given on behalf of the Transkeian Government, the Glen Grey and Herschel electoral divisions will be represented in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly by at least the same number of representatives as represented them in the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly.

Clause 6:

This clause, too, contains only consequential amendments.

Clause 7 contains the short title and date of commencement. The date of commencement will have to be determined after satisfactory arrangements have been made in regard to the transfer of the administration of the Glen Grey and Herschel districts, and in regard to those persons who prefer to move to the Ciskeian territory. I trust that, after the above elucidation, there will be general understanding and support for this Bill in this House.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has said, all the provisions in this Bill relate to the inclusion of two areas, namely Glen Grey and Herschel, in the Transkei, a fact which necessitates the change in description of the districts of the Transkei. Also, the necessary administrative measures have to be introduced to provide for their representation in the Transkei Legislative Assembly, and for other administrative matters as well. The hon. the Minister has dealt shortly with the history of this matter, and we know that in 1971 a referendum was held in the Glen Grey district, amongst the residents of that area, as to their inclusion of the Transkei. It was then proposed that they should be included in the Transkei but it was turned down, I believe by quite a big majority. Subsequently, earlier this year, when the announcement was made by Chief Minister Sebe in the Ciskei Legislative Assembly, namely that it was intended to transfer these two areas to the Transkei, we know that the representatives in the Legislative Assembly objected and that there were demonstrations outside the Assembly in protest against the inclusion in the Transkei. We know, too, from questions put by us in the Select Committee to the Government officials, that further consultations have taken place between the Government officials and the residents of these two areas, and an indication was given that there seemed to be a change of heart in these areas and that there might be more people who were willing to be included in the Transkei. The hon. the Minister has indicated that Chief Minister Sebe has not said that if there were Ciskeians who were not prepared to go into the Transkei, the Ciskei Government was prepared to provide them with land elsewhere where they could establish themselves.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the proclamation which was issued on behalf of the Ciskei Government, providing for the excision of these two areas. These matters have been dealt with in the Bantu Affairs Select Committee. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the proclamation will only come into effect on a date to be fixed by the State President. We understood from the officials that in the meantime further consultations were taking place with the people who might be reluctant to be included in the Transkei, a fact which the hon. the Minister confirmed in his speech this afternoon. This Bill, however, makes provision only for the inclusion in the Transkei because once these Ciskeians are excised from the Ciskei they have to go somewhere and obviously they would have to go into the Transkei. I think in clause 7 provision is made for this date of inclusion in the Transkei to be fixed by the State President, and that would only be after the Government has completed its negotiations with the people affected.

The Transkei Government and the Ciskei Government have both asked for this. We know that the people, geographically speaking, are more suited to be in the Transkei than where they are at the moment. We can only hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached and that the people in the area will eventually all be satisfied. Especially as the request comes from the two Governments, we will support this measure. The hon. the Minister has referred to the question of the change of name. Is the name being changed to “Western Tembuland” at the request of the people in Emigrant Tembuland and Glen Grey, or did the request come from the Transkei Government itself?

The request came from the Transkei Government.

And not from the people concerned?

Yes, on their behalf. I will reply to this later.

I would like to know especially whether the Glen Grey people requested that their area should now become known as “Western Tembuland” instead of Glen Grey. We will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are not going to support the Second Reading, although I realize that a cogent point has been made by the hon. member for Griqualand East to the effect that both the Transkeian Government and the Ciskeian Government are in agreement on this measure. There are, however, the actual people themselves. As the hon. member has pointed out, there was considerable opposition by the representatives of the area when the decision was taken in the Ciskeian Assembly that these two areas should be transferred to the Transkei. More important than this is the fact that the referendum which was held in 1971 showed an overwhelming reluctance, by the residents of the Glen Grey area anyway, to be included in the Transkei. The voting figures, which I think this House ought to have, were that 37 842 votes were cast in favour of remaining under the authority of the Ciskei and 6 634 votes were cast in favour of transferring to the authority of the Transkei. I find that these are overwhelming figures against the move that is being proposed here. Although it is true that we were told on the Bantu Affairs Select Committee that there has been a change of heart among the inhabitants and that further consultations are taking place, I feel that this House should not consent to this transfer of authority until a real effort has been made to see whether there has been a substantial change of heart among the people concerned.

It is all very well for the Chief Minister of the Ciskei to promise that he will accommodate the people in the Glen Grey and Herschel areas who do not want to be transferred to the authority of the Transkeian Government. It is all very well for him to promise them land. It is also true that additional land has been made available by way of this new area that links the two parts of the Ciskei, viz. the Stockenström area. However, I have always understood that the Ciskei is hopelessly overpopulated as it is. Surely that land is vitally necessary for their own people, without offering the land to the people who are presently accommodated in the Herschel and Glen Grey areas.

There is another very important factor which has not been mentioned, viz. the system of land tenure of those people. If I remember my history, in 1894 when the Glen Grey Act was passed, I think through the authority of Cecil Rhodes, this was the first time that Africans held land under a quitrent system in the Native Reserves as they subsequently became known. That is the method under which these people presently hold their land. Have any assurances been given by Chief Minister Sebe of the Ciskei to those people that should they, in fact, be moved from the Glen Grey area they would enjoy the same quitrent system as they presently enjoy? I think this is of vital importance to the people concerned because it is a form of individual tenure which most of the people in the Ciskei, to my knowledge, do not enjoy.

Therefore, for all these reasons and because three years ago the vast majority of the people certainly seemed unwilling to move—I also have a petition which was recently drawn up stating very clearly that there is still considerable opposition to the proposal to transfer these people to the authority of the Transkei—we in these benches wish to record our opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has received the support of the official Opposition, and for that I should like to thank my hon. friend from Griqualand East. I shall come in a moment to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Griqualand East, as well as the hon. member for Houghton, referred to the 1971 referendum. There is an interesting history attached to this referendum. I, as the responsible Minister, was very sceptical at the time about a referendum, for we know that in the traditional Bantu approach there is no feeling for or knowledge of such matters as referendums. In our country, as far as the Whites are concerned, a referendum was held on only one occasion, and we know to what extent the Opposition has already forgotten about it by this time. We of course are grateful for it.

Did the people fail to understand that, too?

I want to complete my speech. What I am actually doing is to praise the hon. members. As I have said, I was very sceptical about the referendum in 1971, and the stir in and resolutions adopted by these two Bantu territories this year demonstrated that my scepticism was not without foundation. Initially it was the intention in 1971 that only the tribal and regional authorities of the Bantu in the Glen Grey area would be consulted. Subsequently other ideas emerged, pressure was exerted on me, and a very earnest request was made to me to allow a referendum to be held after all. I then approved of a referendum being held. To the Bantu of such tradition-bound areas such as those in particular, the correct mode of conduct is that their established public bodies, i.e. the tribal authorities, regional authorities and their overall government, where anything like this exists, should be consulted in these matters. Those authorities then have to decide. Consequently this was my approach to this entire matter, until it was raised once again last year. Consequently we have adopted the attitude throughout that their responsible bodies should accept the necessary responsibility for deciding with what homeland they belonged. To us it does not really make very much difference, although there are practical considerations which one could in fact take into account, for example contiguity of areas. In their manner there were many negotiations in both the territories between the overall governments, the regional authorities and the tribal authorities. We on our part also had to furnish them with explanations where necessary, and all these things Were done. That is why these resolutions were adopted. Since we are acceding to the request, we are in the very strong position that it is a request from both the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei as well as the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. In the case of the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei the matter was debated openly, after first having been discussed and considered on the level of the regional authorities and of the tribal authorities. In regard to the name “Western Tembuland”, this is a matter to which the chief minister and the Cabinet of the Transkei itself, in consultation with the people of the Glen Grey area, gave attention. After they had contacted their own people, I was formally requested by the chief minister of the Transkei to call the new, enlarged area the Western Tembuland area when we changed the Act.

†Now I want to come to the hon. member for Houghton. We have the very peculiar situation here that in this case the hon. member for Houghton knows better than the tribal and regional authorities of the Glen Grey and Herschel areas and she also knows better than the whole National Assembly of the Ciskei which took a resolution in favour of what we are asking for here today.

No, I do not.

Usually the hon. member tells us that we are doing things in connection with the Bantu which we regard as correct but on which the Bantu did not have an opportunity of expressing their views. In this case all the Bantu authorities concerned did express their opinion, but the lonely swallow of Houghton knows better than all of them! [Interjections.] The land which is available…

Is it not true that their representatives voted against it?

Sir, when is the small gramophone going to stop? The land which is available in the Ciskei will be enough for people who desire to move away from the Glen Grey and/or the Herschel area as well as for other people who need land in the Bantu homeland area.

Then, in connection with the question of quitrent facilities; there are such facilities in the Ciskei also for those people who have to move from the Glen Grey or Herschel areas if they desire to have such facilities. I shall nevertheless, also bring this to the notice of Chief Minister Sebe of the Ciskei.

*It seldom happens that one disposes of a Bill so easily in this House. If I could get a nod of the head from the opposite side of the House to indicate that we may now dispose of the other stages of the Bill as well, I shall resume my seat so that we will still have time to dispose of the other stages. If I do not get the nod, it does not matter. Sir, there I am now getting two movements of the head. The one member is shaking his head from left to right, while the other member is nodding his head affirmatively, up and down. [Interjections.] Even this innocuous legislation, in regard to which people have expressed their opinions, and which has been introduced at the request of two legislative assemblies, i.e. the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei and the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei, cannot receive unanimous support from this divided Opposition. I am very grateful that the…

We support it.

No, wait; I am not finished speaking yet; the hon. member is being too hasty. I say that I am very grateful for the support of the United Party Opposition, and I appreciate their support. As far as the other two Opposition parties are concerned, I do not know as yet what the Reform Party is going to do, for they have not spoken yet, but as far as the Progressive Party is concerned, I want to tell them that those Bantu will take cognizance of their attitude.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, R. J. Lorimer, Mrs. H. Suzman and Mr. G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.