Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment I had moved the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper but I had not yet had an opportunity of explaining fully my reasons for moving the amendment. I had said that there was an administrative practice that had grown up over the years of sending most of the documents of the department to taxpayers by ordinary post. I had also said that I felt that in view of the fact that a demand meant that something had to be done by the recipient taxpayer upon receipt of the demand and that if he failed to do so certain further steps would be taken against him in terms of the Act, that demand should be sent by registered post. When I speak about registered post, I am prepared to concede that if it were to go by certified mail the same purpose would probably be served. However, I believe that there should be some record of it, particularly in view of the new subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new section 106 which now contain a presumption to the effect that any form, notice or demand or other communication referred to in subsection (2) which has been issued, given or served, shall be deemed to have been received by the person to whom it has been addressed. I believe that as a result of this presumption it is going to be far more difficult for a taxpayer who has been sent a demand to prove that he has not received it. I do not know how the taxpayer can get off this hook. If my amendment is accepted, he can say that he did not receive that demand and there will be proof to that effect. That is the purpose of my amendment. I believe it is an amendment that the hon. the Minister can accept because it does not affect the other administrative machinery of the department. It is only in the case of a demand, therefore, that that demand will be sent either by registered post or by certified mail.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, the presumption that has just been referred to by the hon. member for Wynberg and which was referred to yesterday by, I think, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, is in fact a presumption as to time and not to the fact of receipt. That is the first point I want to make. I also want to say that it is not really clear to me why the hon. member for Wynberg is insistent on this amendment unless he thinks that the common law doctrine of in mora applies. He has not specifically mentioned this but I think it is implied. This of course is the doctrine which applies in civil actions where one party claims something—usually the payment of money—from another, and the second party refuses or fails to comply with the demand by a particular date. That party, if liable, is then in mora and has to pay interest, damages or a penalty because he has not complied with the demand in time. However, this particular doctrine of in mora has, in fact, no place in the Income Tax Act, I want to pursue this point.

I accept that.

Section 162 of the Income Tax Act provides for the way in which any notice issued in terms of the Act must be served. The amendments extend “notice”—I think this is the whole point—to include form, demand, document or other communication, and the word “serve” also includes issued, given or sent. It seems to me that the objection of the hon. member for Wynberg is to the proposal that the demand should be sent by ordinary post. That appears to be the crux of the matter. His amendment is also to the effect that such demand should be sent by registered post or certified mail. “Notice” can in fact include “demand” and, as the law now reads, a demand which is a notice, if it is sent by post, must be sent by registered post. The amendment we are proposing is to the effect that it can be sent by any other type of post as well. The reason why ordinary post is to be authorized is that the most common form of notice issued by the department—an assessment notice—is, notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 of the Act, almost invariably sent by ordinary post and not by registered post. That is the position in practice. An assessment notice is in fact a form of demand, i.e. a demand for tax. To accept the hon. member’s amendment would mean that all assessments would have to be sent by registered post which would in fact nullify the objective sought to be achieved, viz. to regularize the present practice of sending them by ordinary post. Possibly the hon. member understands the word “demand” in the sense that we do in practice, viz. a demand issued for overdue tax. This is sent some time after an assessment notice has been issued. These are usually called final demands and the taxpayer is warned that if he does not heed the demand, legal proceedings will be instituted against him. These demands are, in fact, issued to avoid such proceedings. In the first instance, there is nothing in the Act which compels the department to issue a final demand and, in the second instance, the issuing of a final demand does not in any way affect the liability of the taxpayer for tax or any interest due thereon. It is the practice of the department to issue final demands by registered or certified post and it is not proposed to change the practice.

That is important. Legal proceedings are only resorted to if all other efforts to collect the tax have failed. The final demand is therefore really a reminder and a warning as the demand has already been made in the assessment notice. What happens in practice is that the computer issues a demand by certified mail some time after the lax has become overdue. If the tax is still not paid, the local Receiver of Revenue then issues a stop order on the taxpayer’s salary, or, if legal proceedings are necessary, a further demand by registered or certified post. Sir, it may seem that registered post is the best form of mail, but I do not think that this is necessarily the case. The person signing for a registered article is not always a lessee, and cases have come to light where people have refused to accept registered articles, knowing from whence they come. It is in fact found that certified mail is satisfactory. The hon. member’s amendment, of course, only refers to registered mail. With regard to the other kinds of demands issued by the department, i.e. for outstanding returns or information, we can deal with that separately if that is necessary. These take the form of simple requests followed by a final demand sent by registered or certified mail.

Just to summarize, Sir, assessment notices requiring tax to be paid by a certain date are demands; that is the point I want to stress. They cannot be sent by registered post. The proposed amendment would nullify the proposed section 116, allowing the use of ordinary mail. The second point I want to stress, Sir, is that final demands for overdue tax do not necessarily have to be issued. They are merely reminders and are issued to avoid legal proceedings. They do not affect the amount of tax or interest due. In practice they are sent by certified or registered mail. We find certified mail satisfactory and the practice will be continued, notwithstanding the new provisions authorizing the use of ordinary mail. The last point, Sir, is that final demands for outstanding returns are also sent by registered or certified mail, and this practice will also be continued. The Act requires taxpayers to render returns, and it is no excuse to allege that a return form was not received, or that no demand was in fact received. Sir, I think I should like to leave it there.

Mr. Chairman, let me say very briefly to the hon. the Minister that we accept that there are certain provisions of the Act where notices are sent out merely as a courtesy to remind persons of their obligations. The intention of this amendment is not to affect that in any way at all, but the point that I wanted to make to the hon. the Minister is this: In terms of section 75 of the Act, the Secretary can demand certain information from a person. This can be done in writing. Subsection (b) says—

The point is that that creates an offence, and all I am asking the hon. the Minister is to make certain that his department gives the taxpayer the opportunity of replying and that it does not take action against such a taxpayer simply because he has not responded to a letter which has been sent to him through the ordinary mail. Sir, I also cannot accept the arguments of the hon. the Minister regarding the provisions of the new subsection (3). He says that this is merely an indication of the time when the demand would have been received. If he looks at line 20, he will find that it is stated quite clearly that it shall be deemed to have been received by the person to whom it was addressed at the time—I grant him that—when it would normally have arrived, but this subsection goes on to say, in line 24: “Unless the Secretary is satisfied that it was not so received”. It is quite clear that a presumption is created as to the receipt of this letter by the taxpayer concerned. I believe that the hon. the Minister must have another look at this. I do not think that we must waste any more time. We have moved our amendment, and we will vote for it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments printed in my name—

1. (1) On page 48, to omit all the words after “acquired” in line 8 up to and including “1936)” in line 11 and to substitute:
   1. (i) by the South African Bantu Trust under section 10 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936); or
   2. (ii) by expropriation pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriation Act, 1975, and the empowering Acts therein referred to;
2. (2) on page 48, in lines 12 and 13, to omit “by the said Trust”;
3. (3) on page 48, in line 18, to omit “by the said Trust”;
4. (4) on page 52, to omit all the words after “certificate” in line 31 up to and including “(a)” in line 34 and to substitute:
   1. (i) by the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development to the effect that the land in question was acquired as contemplated in subparagraph (1) (a) (i); or
   2. (ii) by the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that the land in question was acquired as contemplated in subparagraph(1)(a)(ii).
5. (5) on page 52, to add the following subparagraph at the end of the proposed paragraph 20:
   1. (7) For the purposes of this paragraph “taxpayers” includes a shareholder in a company wound up or placed in liquidation as a result of the acquisition of land as contemplated in sub-paragraph (1).

Sir, I foreshadowed this amendment in the Second Reading debate, so I am not going to go into any great detail, except to say that I believe the point had been made sufficiently during this session that when land is expropriated from any person, that person is on occasion placed in a position where he has to dispose of either a plantation or of livestock. This applies in farming ventures. Contrary to what the hon. member for Smithfield said yesterday, this clause as it stands already has a built in reason for this type of procedure because it says in paragraph (b) that “in consequence of the acquisition of such land by the said Trust as aforesaid, the farming undertaking on such land has been or is being wound up.” The same conditions that apply to the acquisition of land by the Bantu Trust should, I believe, apply in the case of expropriation. It is only when the expropriation has the effect of bringing about the winding up of the undertaking that I believe that the expropriation should be dealt with in a similar way as in the case of an acquisition by the Bantu Trust, because I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is going to allow this type of concession if in fact the Bantu Trust only buys a very small portion of a farm and if the remainder of the farm is sufficient for the taxpayer to carry on his farming operations. He will only allow this type of operation when the Bantu Trust acquires so much of the taxpayer’s farm that the taxpayer is compelled to wind up his farming operations. Sir, the purpose of the points made in the amendment is really to include expropriation as a means of acquisition which will be taken into consideration for the purpose of allowing this excess profit to be dealt with in a particular way.

While I am dealing with that aspect. I would point out that we on this side of the House feel that the words in line 3, “if any taxpayer other than a company”, should be given further consideration, because although we agree with the hon. the Minister that a taxpayer company has a fixed rate of tax and that it does not matter what the excess profit is that rate of tax is extremely high; it exceeds 40%, and the advantage that is being given here to the individual taxpayer is that his excess profit will be rated at 9%. There is a very big difference, Sir, between a rate of over 40% and 9%. The argument holds good as far as progressive tax is concerned, but it certainly does not hold good when it comes to the basic tax on excess profits. I believe that the hon. the Minister should have another look at this exclusion of companies, because I think a very good case could be made for a company, particularly a family company which is conducting farming operations on a piece of land which is acquired by the Bantu Trust or by expropriation, also to be dealt with in exactly the same way as the individual taxpayer in regard to excess profits. Sir, a further point that I would like to make in regard to this amendment of mine is that I believe that when it comes to the question of the winding up of a company as a result of the expropriation of the land which belongs to that company and which is its sole asset, the individual shareholder who becomes the individual taxpayer when eventually the distribution is made after the company has been wound up, is then faced with tax liability on excess profits, because those excess profits in the hands of the company are then going to be passed on to the shareholder. Those excess profits in the hands of the company are then going to be passed on to the shareholder. They will be excess profits in the hands of the shareholder, who, divorced from the company which no longer exists, is an individual shareholder. I believe that the hon. the Minister should have a very good look at this, because I believe he can introduce this further principle in regard to company-owned land which is expropriated by the Bantu Trust. You see, Sir, if the hon. the Minister were to do this, it would mean, in the first place, as far as the company is concerned, that the company would then be taxed on the excess profits at 9%, or let us say 12% as a company is not an individual. When that excess profit comes into the hands of the shareholder, the shareholder, instead of paying at the progressive rate of 63%, will have the opportunity of paying 9%. I believe that unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to do that, he will find that in a very large number of cases he is not really benefiting the taxpayer, because many farms—I will not say the majority of farms—which are the subject of expropriation or purchase by the Bantu Trust do, in fact, belong to companies and are an asset of such company, in many cases the sole assets of that company. Therefore, after the expropriation and the removal of that asset from the company, the company is liquidated. The company is wound up and there is no purpose for it to continue.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister will take these suggestions very seriously to heart and perhaps at this late stage accept this amendment, and if he is in the sort of accommodating mood in which I believe he might be on this last day of the session, perhaps he might consider, of his own motion, to move the deletion of the words “other than a company” in line 3, page 48. If he were to do that, I believe he would normalize the position in so far as companies are concerned, and all taxpayers would then have the benefit of this low rate of tax on excess profits.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I wish to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for giving me a draft beforehand and in time of the amendments printed in his name. This is always something which is of great assistance to us on this side of the House, especially where it is an amendment of a reasonably technical nature. In the Second Reading debate on the Expropriation Bill, the matter was apparently raised and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, did whisper something in my big ear about this matter, and therefore I am reasonably informed about it.

†I want to be as accommodating as I can on this last day of the session, if it is the last day. But there is some difficulty here, and I briefly want to explain it from my point of view. In the first place, the amendment refers to expropriation by the State. Of course, as the hon. member knows, in many cases transactions do not go as far as expropriation, because an agreement is reached between the State and the eventual seller. There is therefore no expropriation in fact. In terms of the wording of the amendment, that would be excluded. It seems to me that one of the effects of that could be—and it could be important—that would-be sellers under those circumstances would not in fact conclude these agreements, which would save an awful lot of time and expense, but would wait for expropriation, when they could, if this were accepted, qualify for this concession. That is a practical problem which has to be ironed out. I would like to suggest to the hon. member, for that and for other reasons, that we be given a little more time. The Government is always sympathetically disposed towards the farming community. There is no question about that, but we do need more time because this is something which is far-reaching in its implications for the fiscus. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are already looking at it very carefully and will certainly continue to study this matter very sympathetically. But it is not possible for technical reasons to accept this amendment at this late stage because I do not know the full implications.

Then there is the further point about the company, this question of omitting the words “other than a company” in the first line of the proposed new par. 20(1) being inserted by clause 33. This also, of course, has very far-reaching implications, as the hon. member, I think, himself appreciates. If we accept it, it would entail among other things a number of amendments relating to dividends. That is one of the first implications. The hon. member has himself said that a company pays a flat rate of tax and not a progressive rate of tax such as the individual farmer has to pay. Also, there is the point that not all dividends distributed on the winding-up or the liquidation of a company would come from the disposal of livestock or plantations by a company which could have other unappropriated profits at the time of winding up.

You can identify that.

But this is something which needs to be very carefully looked into. Furthermore, there is also the large-scale purchases of farm land by the State for other purposes. That does not take place to the same extent, I think, as that required for the consolidation of the homelands, and possibly this is not as urgent. The way this came about, of course, was that we had specific representations as the result of purchases for the Bantu Trust. That is what we dealt with and we dealt with is as sympathetically as possible. These further implications, I would like to assure the hon. member, I regard as important. I think he has done a service by raising them, and I will certainly give the assurance that we will look at them as soon as possible. We are already doing so, but we will look at them further and I will certainly keep in touch with him about it. But it is really impossible for me to accept it at this point of time, because I do not know the precise implications as I stand here.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Minister’s problem. It does take time to work out the provisions I have in mind. I see his problem in regard to purchases other than purchases which are tantamount to expropriation, but are not expropriation. I can already suggest further amendments to my own amendment as the result of the debate so far, but there are such matters as can be further gone into—for instance, where land is acquired by means of a compulsory purchase or compulsory acquisition, or where there is, what one might call an acquisition for public purposes, by the State or some other State agency. There are various ways of embroidering on this amendment. I believe that if the hon. the Minister goes into it, he will see that a far wider field can be covered than is stated in the amendment. The amendment is merely to draw attention to the fact that there is an anomaly.

The hon. the Minister said that specific representations were made to him and his department in regard to the land required by the Bantu Trust. As far as the Expropriation Act is concerned, I was a member of the Select Committee which went into that Bill. Unfortunately the terms of reference of the Select Committee were not wide enough to enable it to inquire into the tax angle of expropriation. Many opinions were expressed during the course of the deliberations of the Select Committee and I believe that if the hon. the Minister had been a fly on the wall while those deliberations were taking place, he would possibly have been able to say now that there were very strong representations made in regard to this very matter. As a matter of fact, I believe that this matter is before us today as a result of the strong representations which emanated from the Select Committee on the Expropriation Bill.

I should like to deal briefly with the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. He says that where there is a breakdown and a distribution as the result of winding up, it is going to be extremely difficult to identify the excess profit which eventually gets into the hands of the taxpayer who is a shareholder in a company. I want to point out that I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the present system of auditing and accounting of company accounts to identify this excess profit all the way through from the moment of the purchase by the Bantu Trust and from the moment of expropriation right down to the moment when the taxpayer who is a shareholder in the company receives his cheque. He could be given a proper statement which could be furnished to the Department of Inland Revenue and which could give the breakdown all the way through. I think that is a matter that can be cleared up. Perhaps it is just a question of the method by which it should be done for the purposes of the Department of Inland Revenue.

Then there is one other aspect. Hon. members will notice that my amendment only refers to the Expropriation Act. I know for a fact, and the hon. the Minister knows it, that it is not the Expropriation Act only which empowers expropriation for public purposes. There are a number of provincial ordinances which also empower expropriation for public purposes. I believe that these ordinances are in the process of consolidation at this moment. It has been whispered to me that within the next year or so each province will have a consolidated ordinance dealing with expropriation covering all the expropriation that can be done by provincial authorities. I believe that that could be included in this amendment which I now move.

Finally, it seems to me that the hon. the Minister has a point when he says that he cannot accept this amendment at this stage because it involves a great deal of further study. I think there is one thing which the hon. the Minister can do, however, and that is that he can say to his department that they know what they are aiming at and that they hope to be able to amend the Income Tax Bill during the course of the next session of Parliament. Then he can indicate the lines along which the legislation should be amended in so far as excess profits which derive from these farming propositions are concerned. He must then appeal to them as a department to either delay issuing their assessments until such time as the matter has been cleared up in the Income Tax Act next year or otherwise he can tell them that he believes that they should try and accept the spirit of this debate as the basis upon which the department would look at these excess profits. It must be either the one or the other. As the hon. the Minister is in an accommodating mood, I believe we must strike while the iron is hot. I suggest that the hon. the Minister must give us an assurance while we are dealing with this matter, that he will talk with his department and see whether they cannot alleviate the stress which is being caused by expropriation in respect of excess profits which the farmer-taxpayer or shareholder-taxpayer of a farming company has no control over whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with only two points. The first is that I think from what the hon. member for Wynberg has said it is quite clear that the implications of these amendments are far-reaching. He himself has, in fact, raised a further implication. As to the hon. member’s last request to me, the taxing authority is extremely reasonable, but the hon. member will appreciate that I cannot commit myself finally. However, I have said that I will look at it sympathetically and I will certainly convey the hon. member’s request to my department. They will certainly act in the best spirit they can, but I cannot give any undertaking because one obviously has to look at the implications for the basic revenue one has to have for the fiscus. I will convey it to them in the same spirit as it was raised by the hon. member.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendments (2), (3) and (4) dropped.

Amendment(5) negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In doing so, may I take up a few minutes to clarify one or two issues, namely those in relation to the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, Where I think I was to some extent at cross purposes with him.

In regard to the hon. member for Yeoville, this question of a possible change to a different basis of evaluating stock, where the hon. member referred specifically to LIFO method—he also asked me in regard to opening stocks. I would like to say that an example of why no hard and fast rule can be laid down, as I have explained earlier on, as to the conditions to be imposed in changing to the LIFO method of stock valuation, is that there appears to be different views on the matter in the profession itself. We have found, for instance, that one view is that the value at the end of the year during which the change-over occurs, should not be less than the value of such commodities at the beginning of the year, while another school favours the value based on the price paid for such commodity or the average price, before the commencement of the year. The conditions to be imposed in the year of change-over should therefore be aimed at safeguarding the fiscus against, what we call, an inordinate loss in that year, and it will be formulated in consultation with the accounting and the auditing professions. The conditions which the Receivers of Revenue have insisted on for the change-over up to now, have been done according to the best authorities that we have used up to now, but as I said yesterday, we do want more time to study this carefully and to formulate in consultation with the profession a more careful procedure. I can say we have of course already had preliminary discussions, particularly on the question of opening stock, and I hope that by the time we reconvene next year we would have reached a point where we would be able to make something final and quite definite known.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North raised a point in connection with taxation and he referred to taxation for Blacks and Whites. In the first instance, I was not quite sure of the precise question the hon. member put to me but I have been reading the Hansard to see what precisely he asked. I would like to make it clear that in the Income Tax Act no differentiation is made on racial or ethnic grounds in regard to taxes imposed under that Act. This is the point the hon. member for Bellville sought to make. However, it is true that in terms of the Bantu Taxation Act of 1969, Bantu persons are exempted from the payment of normal income tax, viz. taxes imposed under the Income Tax Act, as from the tax year 1971. They are now taxed under the Act of 1969 administered by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Prior to the tax year 1971, Bantu persons were liable for the payment of normal income tax, but not for provincial, personal and income taxes and any normal tax paid was set off against the additional tax payable in terms of the Bantu Taxation and Development Act, 1925. It is true that Bantu persons in certain income groups pay more tax than other national groups, i.e. Whites, Coloureds or Indians. This is due to the fact that liability for the tax levied under the Bantu Taxation Act, 1969, commences at R360 and that a flat tax of R2-50 is imposed on every male Bantu adult. Furthermore, no provision is made for rebates or abatements for children and no differentiation is made between married and unmarried persons. In the case of unmarried persons, those with incomes less than R700 pay more tax than other population groups, but above that figure they pay less. Married Bantu persons with no children in the category up to R1 200 per annum pay more tax than other population groups, or where there are two children, up to an income of R3 000 per annum. I have some figures here, but perhaps the best would be for the hon. member to get the table from me if he is interested. He can then see precisely how the comparisons are made. I hope that clarifies the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have heard from the hon. the Minister, because I agree with the figures he gave. All I would like to say is that we all know, as the hon. the Minister again repeated, that the basis of our tax system is the ability to pay. Therefore, when you come to look at categories of people who earn the same income, in certain categories one finds that Black South Africans pay more tax than White South Africans. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to do is to talk to his colleague in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, because that situation, for whatever reason it may exist, is to my mind an anachronism. Therefore, in so far as all South African citizens are concerned in regard to income tax, we should reach a position where, for a given level of income, they pay the same tax irrespective of colour or any other criteria. I think there would be a consensus about this in South Africa in 1975 and I do not think that any member on the Government side thinks anything other than that this should be so. Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would give us an undertaking that he will at least look into the matter with a view to putting the ability to pay on an equal footing and having therefore, the same tax payments for all South Africans irrespective of colour.

Are you asking for equal tax?

I am asking that as far as income tax is concerned, all South Africans, irrespective of colour, should pay the same tax at the same income level.

I should like to come back now to two points raised by the hon. the Minister in reply to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Firstly, I want to refer to assessments made by the Receiver of Revenue in regard to the payment of income tax and undistributed profits tax. In both cases it is common cause that the taxpayer has to give a full and adequate disclosure to the Receiver of Revenue. In either case, if he does not do so, the authorities have the right to go back further than three years to reopen matters. If full and adequate disclosure is given, will the hon. the Minister tell us why one cannot go back further than three years? One can as far as the payment of income tax is concerned obtain either a nil assessment or full assessments for taxes over those three years. However, we understood the hon. the Minister to say yesterday that the same did not apply to payments of undistributed profits tax. Section 102(2) which is being substituted by clause 28(2) of this Bill reads as follows—

I quite freely admit that cases where this is likely to occur are probably infrequent. One could, however, envisage someone having made a provisional tax payment. There could subsequently be a legal dispute in order to resolve the actual tax liability. Such legal dispute may go on for longer than three years. If it is found after three years that the provisional payment was higher than the amount the appropriate authorities decide should have been paid, I would like it confirmed that there will be a refund of the excess amount paid.

I have only two further points I want to raise. One is in regard to the question of savings and the Government’s ability to attract finance from the general earning public in South Africa. Many methods have been invented in modern times to try to get extra money from the general public. The hon. the Minister is no doubt aware of the system in Brazil. There one is allowed to hold certain Government stock on which one is given certain tax concessions. We asked earlier this session whether the Government was prepared to consider a State lottery or whether representations in that regard had been made. The answer we were given precluded the introduction of such a lottery at this point in time. However, has the hon. the Minister given consideration to a system analogous to the premium bond system which operates in Great Britain? Obviously one has to be very careful about the implications involved in the introduction of any new scheme. I think, however, that that system is one which will not create distortions elsewhere. I just wonder whether the hon. the Minister is considering the introduction of such a scheme because it would not be particularly difficult to administer.

I would like to come back to the question of the profitability on which the tax system of this country is obviously predicated. I would also like to come back to the question of corporate profitability in this connection. If the rate of inflation is 15%, what one is in effect saying, if one does the mathematical calculations, is that for a businessman to maintain the level of his business, let alone increasing it in real terms, his profit margin before tax has to be of the order of 25%. All I am saying is that he has to earn 25% before tax in order to stay where he is, let alone expand. It should also be borne in mind that in the attraction of savings into corporate business which constitutes a platform from which the growth of private enterprise in this country springs, people will balance the other avenues open to them for investment against putting savings into corporate business under the present system at the current rate of inflation and the prevailing tax rate. They may prefer to put their savings into institutions where there is no risk. One therefore has to strike a balance because if a businessman is only allowed to earn 25% before tax or something lower when the rate of inflation is running at 15%, then honestly, why should he take all the risks and put all his energies into something which at best will only place him in a situation where he is running faster in order to stand still? Obviously therefore in these circumstances—we all hope that the rate of inflation will decrease—businessmen will be looking for a return before tax of much higher than 25% in order to get some recompense for their risk. In this connection too I think it is important that the hon. the Minister will give an undertaking that he and his department will continue to review investment allowances. After all, depreciation allowances are simply a form of reserve which enables one at the end to replace machinery and capital works. As welcome as the proposed increases in investment allowances are, they are still not of a major size and, if one considers them in relation to what is offered elsewhere—in comparison with what is offered in the United Kingdom, for instance—one finds that they are still far below the levels which obtain there.

This brings me more or less to the end of the comments I wish to make on this Bill but I would like to re-emphasize and reiterate that we accept the fact that the basis of the taxation system in this country is the ability to pay. I just want to repeat that the hon. the Minister should talk to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development because it seems to me intolerable that, given the simple fact of ability to pay, one should have in this country the situation where Black people should be required to pay a higher rate of tax than their equivalents among the White South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters on which I would like to touch briefly. Firstly, there are a series of unanswered questions which have been raised at various times, particularly during the Second Reading debate on this measure. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to some of them. I only want to refer to what was mentioned, inter alia, to the question of non-residents, double taxation, the capital gains tax, further provisions in respect of exporters and matter of that sort. I do not want to repeat all that was said in this regard.

There are also other matters which can be dealt with, without legislation. I refer to the question of the housing situation that is developing, the problems in respect to income levels, with respect to building societies, and matters of that sort. One hopes that during the recess the hon. the Minister will give attention to these.

There is one matter, however, which I would specifically like to refer to and that relates to the question of savings. I anticipate that the hon. the Minister would try to do something, bearing in mind the acceptance of the collective programme, in respect of encouraging savings between now and when Parliament next meets. Yesterday the hon. the Minister, in reply to me, said that the statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs setting out the Cabinet’s attitude on this matter, contained the same provision as was contained in the committee’s report. I now have the two documents before me. Let me read it so that we can see what the significance of the difference is. In the inflation committee’s report the following was said:

That is not in the statement issued by the hon. the Minister. In the statement issued by he hon. the Minister it says:

These are two completely different things. This is the difficulty, unless I have the wrong statement, unless I have been given the wrong statement. To me it is very significant that we have to have provisions which deal with the erosion of capital. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether I have been given the wrong statement or whether I have the right one.

You are wrong in the way you quote it. I shall deal with it.

The important point is—and this is the question which I posed the hon. the Minister, and to which I would like a reply—whether the Minister intends to introduce measures—I am using virtually the words of the report—in order to obviate the erosion of capital, and keeping capital intact in periods of rising prices. In other words, does he intend to have a form of savings which will afford this protection to people? There are lots of examples. The hon. member for Constantia dealt with this matter, and I have dealt with it earlier. In fact, all of us have dealt with this kind of thing. He knows that in Britain at the moment there are two types of saving schemes which are being introduced, one where you save by instalments of some £20 a month, and the other which is only open I believe to people over the age of 60. I think that the nickname which has been given to that, is “geriatric bond”. These schemes are available—they have been available in Brazil, in Finland, in Belgium and in France. This is therefore not something unique in the world, but it is something that is necessary in order to deal with the fight against inflation, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with this and to tell us whether he has such an intention and to give us some indication as to what in fact he has in mind.

I would like to come back, just briefly, to the question of LIFO. The difficulty which exists here is that, until now, the Secretary has not had the power to impose conditions. In terms of this legislation he now has the power to impose conditions. There were a series of conditions which the Secretary tried to impose before. The reason why I raise this point is that the conditions which the Secretary sought to impose before, for which there was no legislative authority until now, are conditions which are likely to create problems. I focused attention on some of them. There are other problems too but I do not wish to burden the House with them at this moment. But the question of the difference between the closing stock in one year and the opening stock in another year, if you are going to convert to LIFO, is a very real problem. I accept the hon. the Minister’s statement that he regards this as a matter of difficulty and that it will be gone into in some detail, so as to ensure that there is no prejudice against the people who seek to convert to it, and at the same time that there are no substantial tax losses in the initial year. But one cannot introduce this system with success unless the authorities are prepared to accept that in the initial year there must be some reduction in taxation. I think that if one accepts that, there is no problem. I accept that one must not abuse this, but I think that if one does not accept some initial reduction, then one will find oneself unable to introduce the system.

There is one other matter that I would like to touch on and ask the hon. the Minister to consider. This is that investment allowances, as we have again dealt with them in this piece of legislation, apply only to new machinery.

Sir, there is logic behind this, because if you were to have trafficking in machinery inside South Africa, you would in fact be able to claim the allowances more than once. But would the hon. the Minister not consider granting that allowance where second-hand machinery is imported? The reason for this request is that from time to time people may wish to import whole plants or whole factories. It has been done before …

Motor plants, for example.

It has been done before in the case of motor plants, as the hon. member for Gardens reminds me. It results in considerable benefits for South Africa if you can import second-hand plants as a whole entity into South Africa, so that you can virtually start operating with all the experience which is behind the operation of that plant. I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, certainly for next year, he will not consider granting these allowances where second-hand or used machinery is imported into the country.

Sir, I rise to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to just two points. The first point is the question of the accumulation of debt in certain areas in the private sector, especially in relation to growth. It has been reported that in certain sectors of the economy, for example in the manufacturing sector, certain figures of growth have been achieved, but what is not taken into consideration in that growth figure is the amount of debt which that section of the industry has had to incur in order to achieve that growth. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North as well as by me in the Second Reading speech. Sir, this is a very serious thing, because at some stage that debt has to be liquidated, and if you have to increase your debt in order to achieve this growth, you are going to end up with a negative result. That is the first point I want to make. The second point to which I want the hon. the Minister to reply is the suggestion I made that consideration should be given to the establishment of a Standing Committee of this House on Public Revenue.

Quite clearly, the way in which the fiscal tool is used to guide the economy is very important. We want to see capital created through savings, and we want to see those savings channelled into the right part of the economy, in other words, into that part of the economy which is going to produce goods and services. I think that hon. members of this House could make a great contribution in this regard, and from a procedural point of view they could do this far better through Standing Committee where expert opinions could be considered and where thoughts and ideas could be exchanged.

Sir, the hon. member for Johannesburg North has raised certain further points. First of all, he wants me to talk to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, about Bantu taxation. That is, of course, a matter which falls squarely under my hon. colleague, and I have no doubt that he knows what he is doing. This is a system which has grown up over a long period, and if you look at the position as a whole, Sir, I do not think that you will find that there is the serious sort of discrimination which I think is implied in the hon. member’s approach. If you compare the tax payable on an income of R2 000 by a married White, Coloured or Asiatic with the tax payable by a Bantu who has an income of R2 000, you will find that the tax for the White is R72, and that the tax for the Bantu is R37. On an income of R3 000, the tax payable by the White is R178, and the tax payable by the Bantu is R87. On an income of R4 000, the White pays R283, and the Bantu 171. On R5 000, the White pays R396 and the Bantu R273. The higher their income rise, the closer the amounts come together. But the fact remains that even at the top the marginal rate for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians would be R63, and for the Bantu R60. That answers the point that has been raised that the Bantu are so much worse off than the Whites in terms of taxation.

The vast majority of them fall in the R360 and over grade.

I have read out figures showing how the tax paid by a White, a Coloured or an Asiatic compares with that paid by a Bantu at different income levels.

But surely not at R360.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the prescription period in connection with the undistributed profits tax. I think I mentioned yesterday that the three-year prescription period in this connection takes the date of issue of the normal tax for that year as the date from which prescription for UPT runs. This is the object, of course, of the amendment in the Bill, and as I said yesterday we see no purpose in issuing “Nil” assessments for UPT. The hon. member also referred to refunds in the prescription period, and I think he referred to provisional tax. Now, the provisional tax is not a tax as defined in the Bill. Therefore, the answer to his query is “yes”, because the provisional tax is simply an advance payment dealt with under special provisions of the Act, and not under section 102.

The other point he raised was in regard to capital allowances. I might draw his attention to the fact that the United Kingdom allows a capital allowance equal to the cost of the machinery, whereas the investment allowances in South Africa in fact allow 130% to be written off the cost of machinery over its lifetime, of which 64% more or less, is written off in the first year, depending on the rate of depreciation. It could even be more than 6%. Then the hon. member also referred to corporate profitability under inflation, problems with cash flows, and so on. The fact of the matter is, of course, that although some undertakings do have problems under inflation, many others in fact do very well under inflation. One has only to look at the level of company profits in the last year or two to see how profits have in fact risen. One can say that part of that is paper profits, but the fact is that even if one adjusts for inflation, one finds that in many cases—I can quote many examples of this—company profits have increased substantially in the last year or two.

I come to the hon. member for Yeoville. On the question of the statement issued by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the hon. member has given me the English version of it. I read the Afrikaans version yesterday and it says quite clearly—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The section that he is referring to does not relate to savings if the heading is “Public sector, including public corporations and agricultural control boards.” The hon. the Minister is reading from subsection (4) which relates to the public sector and not to savings. Is that correct?

It relates to the private and the public sector.

On my copy it does not say “Public sector and private sector”, only “Public sector”.

The wording of subsection (4) specifically states “both in the private and the public sector”.

It is not saying it.

The position here is quite clear. This is the programme which has been put out after very close consultation between the Government and the private sector. It sets out what the attack on-inflation is and it is a concerted effort, one might say, on behalf of the economy. The hon. member must not go too far ahead; he must give us an opportunity and give industry, commerce and the private sector an opportunity to proceed a little further along these lines. I think we shall find that we will make some progress in this regard.

I am sorry that I did not answer some of the questions which the hon. member raised yesterday. Quite honestly, I mislaid the notes and I hoped that he would not notice that I mislaid them, but he did notice it. Fortunately, I have found the notes.

He spoke about double taxation agreements which are negotiated from time to time. The hon. member will appreciate that it is impolitic to furnish details of these agreements, particularly where some of them are being negotiated or renegotiated. All I can say is that certain negotiations and renegotiations are taking place at this moment.

He also talked about exporters and I think he referred to forward covering insurance …

In respect of rising costs.

Yes, in respect of rising costs. I can say that this has been considered. There are quite a number of unsolved problems but this matter has been under consideration for some weeks now and it is certainly receiving our attention. It is something which we are definitely looking into.

The possibility of the investment allowance concession being granted i.r.o. second-hand machinery when imported is something which I must have a little more time to investigate.

Yesterday the hon. member also referred to the capital gains tax and to certain remarks which were made recently by the Secretary for Inland Revenue at Windhoek. I can merely say that this is an aspect of the tax system which the Department of Inland Revenue and the Standing Commission on Taxation have been looking into for some months. I can give no final decision on this but I can assure the hon. member that it is one of the matters which is enjoying priority in our investigations.

The hon. member also raised the question of getting the marginal worker to work and encouraging him to get into the work force. He talked about the possibility of tax concessions in this respect. One can of course consider a very wide range of tax concessions. We have quite a number already. I think that the hon. member will agree with me, however, that basically when it comes to the worker being induced to work it is really a question of remuneration should be the incentive than that one should still have to think in terms of tax concessions. There are certain tax concessions in our system and I can quite see the point of the hon. member’s argument.

I think the hon. member also asked whether we could not make Government bonds and stocks more attractive to the individual investor by treating the interest in the same way as dividends; that is to say, there should be a certain tax-free section. Again it is a question basically, I would say, of the rate of interest being the inducement to the would-be investor. If the rate of interest is right then he will invest. However, I am always prepared to examine any proposal which is made to me on taxation and therefore I shall give this matter further attention as well. I think that those were the main points which the hon. member made, according to the notes which I have here. Then, the hon. member for …

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply to me in respect of the investigation into capital gains tax, is the introduction of such a tax a matter which the hon. the Minister regards as a short-term possibility? In other words, might it even come in next year, or is it going to take some considerable time?

It is very difficult for me to commit myself. The matter has been under consideration for some time and it is still under consideration, and I would not wish, to put a time limit on it. However, I think that the investigation is something that we are getting on with because we do not wish to postpone getting clarity on the matter. Therefore, I can assure the hon. member that we are expediting the investigation.

The hon. member for Randburg raise the question of debt. Unfortunately I did not reply to him during the Second Reading debate. I want to grant the hon. member that it is an important point which he raised, viz. that if one is going to finance one’s growth excessively from debt then the future is going to catch up with one. There is no question about it. It raises the interesting point that throughout the session the official Opposition have been strongly advocating the financing of all capital projects out of loans and debts. The hon. member for Constantia is not listening at the moment, but that is what he has been telling us throughout the session, viz. that we have to finance all our capital projects out of loan capital. I think that if one does so one will reach a stage where one will be badly caught out. Not only will one have to pay the very heavy interest burden which is putting up costs and prices to a serious extent at this moment in our economy but one will have to repay the debt. That redemption has to be provided for out of current earnings. I take the point the hon. member has made that that is something that has to be watched all the time. It is an important point. The possibility of having a select committee of the House on public revenues—we have of course the Select Committee on Public Accounts which has a well-defined terrain—is something I can certainly take up with my department but I would not like to give a snap view on it. The importance of looking at the revenue side of our public finances and not concentrating only on the expenditure side, is something I agree with entirely. The one is as important as the other and we will certainly look at it. I think that I have now answered most of the questions put to me.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the Bill is a short and a relatively simple one, no explanatory memorandum has been prepared, as was done in the past in cases of legislation of this nature, and I trust that I shall explain fully, in the course of my speech, all aspects in regard to which hon. members may have any doubts.

This Bill amends the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, the Estate Duty Act, 1955, and the Stamp Duties Act, 1968.

As a result of the amendments to the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, 1971, which were effected earlier this session, it has become necessary to amend section 12 of the Transfer Duty Act, 1949. Said section provides that a deeds registry may not make any record of an acquisition of property unless proof has been produced to it of the payment of any transfer duty payable. In subsection (2) of that section, provision is made for the case of land being transferred by the registered owner in terms of section 11 of the Sale of Land on Instalments Act to the last purchaser in a series of successive transactions without its first having been transferred to the previous purchasers. Hon. members will know under what circumstances this may happen. Although the entire series of transactions in a particular case is not registered, transfer duty normally has to be paid in respect of every transaction, and proof of the payment of such transfer duty has to be produced to the registration officer before the land is transferred to the last purchaser.

Originally, the Sale of Land on Instalments Act made provision for cessions. That Act has now been amended to make provision for intermediary transactions. Consequently the amendment proposed in clause 1 of the Bill adapts the provisions of the Transfer Duty Act to the new provisions of the Sale of Land on Instalments Act.

Clause 2 amends section 4 of the Estate Duty Act, 1955, and gives effect to the concession which I announced in my Budget Speech, i.e. that the maximum amount which may be deducted as a rebate in the determination of the taxable amount of an estate in respect of the proceeds of insurance policies and the value of any local registered stock, certain local bonds and Land Bank debentures, is increased from R50 000 to R70 000, of which not more than R35 000—previously R25 000—may consist of the proceeds of insurance policies.

The effect of this concession, in terms of which a testator may make provision during his life time for the payment of estate duty, is that the proceeds of insurance policies, Government stock, and bonds and debentures, to the amount of R35 000 will be sufficient to cover the estate duty on an estate with a net value of R250 454, including the R35 000, in which there is only a surviving spouse, or an estate of R3Ó0 454 in which there is a spouse and two children, whereas proceeds from such assets to the value of R50 000 will cover the estate duty on estates of R318 333 in which there is only a surviving spouse, or R368 333 in which there is a surviving spouse and two children.

The maximum of R70 000 is sufficient for the estate duty on an estate of R402 308 in which, there is only a surviving spouse, or of an estate of R452 308 in which there is a surviving spouse and two children or of an estate of R502 308 in which there is a surviving spouse and four children.

By making provision in this way during one’s lifetime for the payment of estate duty, one ensures that other assets in the estate remain intact, and hon. members will notice from what I have said that provision may be made in this way for the duty on reasonably large estates.

†Clause 3 deletes a provision of section 7 of the Stamp Duties Act, 1968, which relates to the stamp duty on affidavits. That duty was abolished in 1974 and the deleted provision is therefore no longer necessary.

Clause 4 amends section 24 of the Stamp Duties Act, 1968. That section contains provisions concerning the stamp duties on insurance policies. In terms of Item 18(4) and (6) of Schedule 1 to the Stamp Duties Act, 1968, stamp duty is payable in respect of renewals of certain insurance policies, mainly short-term policies. The duty payable under item 18(6) is charged at the rate of 1% of the premiums and is payable quarterly on declaration instead of by means of stamps on the policy documents or renewal receipts. The duty under item 18(4) is payable in respect of policies of marine insurance and renewals thereof or endorsements thereto involving additional premiums and payment is effected in the normal manner, viz. by means of stamps.

Section 24(1) of the Act requires insurers to issue premium receipts when renewals of policies are effected by the payment of premiums. In terms of the amendments introduced by subsection (l)(a) this requirement is abolished except as respects renewals of policies of marine insurance chargeable with duty under item 18(4). In terms of the new subsection (2A) introduced by subsection (1)(c) stamp duty will continue to be chargeable in respect of a renewal of a policy chargeable with duty under item 18(6) notwithstanding that no premium receipt or instrument is executed in respect of the renewal. The amendments, therefore, do not bring about any change in the amount of duty and are purely of an administrative nature and were in fact requested by insurance companies.

In terms of subsection (10) of section 24 of the Stamp Duties Act, 1968, insurers may at their option be permitted to pay the stamp duty chargeable in respect of certain classes of insurance policies—mainly life policies, annuity policies and third party motor vehicle policies—at intervals on declaration instead of by means of stamps. The amount of duty and the words “duty paid” must appear on the face of each such policy. In terms of the amendment introduced by subsection (1)(e) these particulars need not necessarily appear on the face of the policy but may be printed elsewhere in the policy by means of a computer process. This amendment does not bring about any change in policy but merely modernizes the present provisions to keep abreast with computer usage.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of this side of the House in regard to this measure is that while it deals with important amendments to the Transfer Duty Act, the Estate Duty Act and the Stamp Duty Act, owing to the limitation on the time for discussing taxation measures we are very fast running out of time. Before us we still have the Customs and Excise Bill which we regard as a very important measure which should be discussed at some length in this House. For that reason we are not going to spend time discussing this Bill at the Second Reading stage and we will accordingly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak very briefly. I merely want to say that the first and last clauses of this Bill are totally unobjectionable. The second clause is in line with the Second Report of the Franzsen Commission of some years ago. This provision is now being put into effect. There was a recommendation to the effect that exemption be given in regard to the proceeds of insurance policies and certain registered stocks and bonds. I see that this advice is followed in the Bill and1 I think that this is to be welcomed. As the hon. the Minister obliquely mentioned, this will assist the taxpayers in providing for the payment of the duty on their estates by the use of these policies. We find the provisions of this Bill unobjectionable and accordingly we support it at the Second Reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Even before this Bill was read for a First Time, copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes had already been made available to certain hon. members on both sides of this House to enable them to study it.

Apart from the customary section in regard to the commencement of certain provisions appearing in the Schedules to the Bill, provision is primarily being made in the proposed amendments, as contained in the text of the Bill, for the handling of goods which are imported or exported in containers.

Although the change-over to the conveyance of cargo in containers, will only take place officially during 1977, an increasing percentage of the cargo destined for the Republic is already being conveyed in containers. This is not merely another method of packing and conveying cargo, but it also entails new cargo handling techniques. The success of the system for the conveyance of containerized cargo depends to a large extent on the rate at which the containers are removed from the harbour area.

The present procedures and statutory provisions for the handling of cargo, as laid down in the Customs and Excise Act, therefore require to be adapted to allow containers to be removed from the harbour area immediately after having been offloaded from the ships. To comply with this requirement it is being proposed that the Customs and Excise Act be amended to make provision for the removal, if necessary, of containers to container depots without clearance of their contents. In the container depots it will be possible to unpack and keep the cargo until all the customs requirements have been complied with. Although this procedure is a departure from the traditional control which the Department of Customs and Excise exercised over imported goods, there will still be sufficient control to ensure that goods are not imported without compliance with all the requirements.

†Mr. Speaker, the procedures to be followed in respect of containerized cargo are largely based on the procedures followed in countries abroad and should it be found that, after implementation of the new procedures, further amendments to the Customs and Excise Act are required, this will be done next year. I may add that the new procedures to be followed by the Department concerned were drawn up after consultation with all interested bodies.

The further amendments to the text of the Customs and Excise Act are to a large extent self-explanatory. I do, however, want to refer briefly to the amendment to section 114 of that Act as contained in clause 12 of the Bill. Section 114 provides for a lien on certain goods if the duty and other charges are not paid on or before the prescribed date. To enforce the lien the goods concerned must however be marked, sealed, etc., as provided in subsection 114(2). It frequently happens, especially in the case of goods subject to the payment of sales duty, that large amounts of duty are not paid on the due date. In order to safeguard revenue an officer of the department then has to go to the premises of the defaulter and mark sufficient goods to cover the duty outstanding and to indicate that those goods are subject to a lien to the department. If the duty is thereafter paid, the lien has to be removed. In order to overcome the necessity of the frequent placing and removal of a lien and to do away with the unnecessary journeys, it is suggested that the relative section be amended to provide that installations and stills used in the manufacture of excisable and sales duty goods are subject to a lien as if the goods has been marked in terms of subsection (2).

Mr. Speaker, once again, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the Department of Customs and Excise for the explanatory memorandum which was provided to this side of the House well in advance of this Bill being read for a First Time. This has made our task of studying this Bill very much easier and I should like to say that we appreciate that gesture on the part of the Minister and the department concerned. There are several features of this Bill to which I should like to refer. First of all, as the hon. the Minister has said, this Bill makes provision for revised customs procedures to deal with containerized imports. Clearly, different procedures are required if we are going to get the full cost production benefit from containerized imports. I understand that the procedures which are contained in the Bill have the blessing of the organizations of the businesses involved.

The Bill asks for confirmation of the various recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries in regard to customs duties which have been gazetted since the last Bill of this nature was passed by the House. These recommendations cover a fairly long list of increases in duties and a rather short list of decreases in duties as well as some amendments to dumping duties, both withdrawing dumping duties and imposing dumping duties. There are also a certain number of rebate recommendations and a certain number of reclassification of customs items for statistical purposes. It does appear to me that the list of increased duties on this occasion is somewhat shorter than we are normally presented with at this stage of a session. I would like to say that we welcome some of the reductions in duties which have been recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries though I must say that where duties have been reduced, they mainly affect non-volume items; in other words, they are not going to be felt very much.

However, as regards the increases in duties, there are some important industries that are getting increased blanket protection. I refer in particular to the clothing industry, the footwear industry, the tyre industry and the industry making lawn-mowers. I believe that before increased duties are allowed on a blanket basis for an industry—in other words, before increased protection is afforded to an industry—two conditions should prevail in the particular industry concerned. The first is that it should be an efficient industry and the second is that, internally, fully competitive conditions should prevail in the industry. Of the four industries which I have mentioned as receiving additional protection under the Bill, I can say that to my knowledge—I have a fairly intimate knowledge of them—both the clothing and the footwear industries are efficiently run. I believe the same applies to the tyre industry and the industry making lawn-mowers. To my knowledge, too the clothing industry and the footwear industry are both fully competitive internally; in other words, competition between manufacturers prevails. In fact, in both those industries I would say that competition is fairly keen I believe that the same applies as far as the industry making lawn-mowers is concerned. However, the same thing cannot be said as far for the tyre industry. In the distribution of tyres to which tyre manufacturers are parties, them are restrictive practices applied in that the distribution of tyres is limited to certain outlets and retail-price maintenance is allowed. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to Board of Trade Recommendation No. 1262, which was made in 1971, in which it was recommended that retail-price maintenance be not allowed in the tyre industry and that, if it were to be abolished, it would lead to lower tyre prices to the consumer. At that time the Minister did not accept the recommendation of the Board of Trade, and one of the results has been that in the meantime there have been importations of tyres, particularly from far Eastern countries such as Japan, which have upset the local industry and the pattern of distribution of the local industry, and in order to stop this type of competition with the local industry, this additional duty for the tyre industry has been imposed. Sir, I would question very much indeed whether this action is in the consumer’s best interests. I find it difficult to agree to the principle of an additional duty as long as restricted practices such as are prevalent in the tyre industry and as long as retail price maintenance are allowed. I question whether it is in the public interest.

Sir, this Bill also includes the tax proposals announced in the budget as far as wines, beers and spirits, tobacco products, petrol, aviation spirits, kerosene and propene are concerned. I think we have already made it quite clear in this House that we do not accept the taxation proposals which are raising the prices of petroleum products. I do not propose in this debate to discuss the merits of financing Sasol 2 and of additional duties, because we will be able to do that when we discuss the Finance Bill which follows this measure, but what I will say is that the imposition of a 2 cent additional tax on petrol is a highly inflationary step. The cost of petrol-driven transport is an element that enters into the life of virtually every single member of our community. It is a cost element in every single business and every single other activity. For this reason an increase in the price of petrol has a multiplier effect; it cascades throughout the cost structure of the economy. It is probably one of the most sensitive commodities that we have in causing inflation. Sir, already the motorist is tremendously heavily taxed. This year, according to the estimates, he will pay R66 million in ordinary excise duty. He is going to pay R35 million in excise duty on cars; he is going to pay R97 million in that part of the excise duty which is going to the National Road Fund. If he lives inland, in the Transvaal or in the northern Free State, he is going to pay R82 million in profits to the pipeline. Sir, that is a total of R280 million which the motorist is going to be asked to pay, without taking into account the fact that he is also being asked to pay sales tax on the purchase of cars, which is a figure that is not separately disclosed. Now on top of that he is going to be asked to pay another R130 million in additional excise duty on petrol.

He will be running on flat wheels.

Back to the ox-wagon.

I would suggest to this Government that this additional 2 cent duty is an additional burden that the motorist can well be spared. This Bill introduces a number of reductions in sales duty. Let me say straight away that reductions in sales duty are very welcome on this side of the House. There are a number of sales duties that have been reduced from various rates, mostly from 15% and from 10%, to a rate of 5%. These 5 proposals all cover the necessities of life. They cover items like table-ware, kitchen-ware, pottery, glass-ware, pins, razors, razor-blades, scissors, fire-grates, heaters, cutlery, etc. These are the necessities of life even for the lower-income groups. I would suggest that if this 5% tax were to be reduced to nil it would provide a very welcome relief to the overburdened consumer and it would also not hit the revenue of the State to any critical extent. Sir, had there been time, in terms of the rules relating to taxation measures, to discuss these items in the Committee Stage, we on this side of the House would have moved amendments in regard to the petrol duty. We would have opposed the increase in the duties on petroleum products and we would also have moved an amendment in regard to sales duty to the effect that all those items which appear in the schedules to this Bill at a rate of duty of 5% should be reduced to the rate of nil sales duty.

One other item of sales duty that I would like to refer to is that on motor cars because here is another imposition which really squeezes the last drop out of the motorist. There are two rates of sales tax on motor cars. There is one rate for the so-called cheaper car, the car costing under R2 850, and a higher rate for the more expensive car. It is the lower-priced car, which is bought and used by the less well-to-do members of our population, that we would like to see reduced in price. For that reason we would also have moved in the Committee Stage that the 7½% duty on motor vehicles should be reduced to nil.

There is one final item included in this Bill to which I would like to refer and that is item 460.24. I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance is listening to this.

He is laughing at the plight of the motorist.

This item in the Bill provides for the partial rebate of duty on textiles which were affected by the increased duties imposed on 20 September last year and which had been shipped prior to that date. It allows for a rebate of the difference between the duty ruling before that date and the higher duties imposed on that date. When those duties were imposed—and we thought that those duties were too high at the time—we repeatedly pleaded that the goods on the water, the goods that had been shipped, the goods which could not be cancelled and had to arrive in this country and in respect of which, the higher duty had to be paid, should be exempted from the additional duty imposed at that time. To our way of thinking that was a fair request and one which would have protected the consumer from an unwarranted effect of the higher duties. The hon. the Minister refused to do that at the time but three months later, on 6 December, he allowed what we had been asking for. This, however, was three months too late. In the meantime, between 20 September and 6 December, goods that had been shipped before 20 September had arrived in this country, had been cleared through customs, and had been distributed on the market at prices which included the higher duty which, the consumer had to pay. That was an unnecessary burden as far as the consumer was concerned. I would like to say that this is a prime example of this Government not listening to people who know what they are talking about.

Hear, hear!

There is one other aspect in regard to this measure which I should like to mention. The notice allowing for the rebate and for the refund of the duties which, were effected by the rebate was gazetted on 6 December, but there is still a large amount outstanding of duties that had been paid and which are due to have the rebates on them repaid. These moneys were paid by importers and they probably had to borrow the money from the bank to pay them. They deserve something in the way of an interest payment from the Government when these refunds are paid. I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider relieving the position of the importers in this regard in view of the whole unhappy history of this episode.

I think the time allowed to me has expired. I should like to say that we shall not oppose this measure but that, had there been time for the matter to move through to the Committee Stage for full discussion, the amendments which I have indicated would certainly have been moved and we would certainly have hoped that they would have been accepted.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did not leave me much time to present the matter from the point of view of this side of the House, since there are only six minutes left.

For me there is no time left at all.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville has been afforded sufficient opportunity to speak during this session.

The hon. Opposition is frequently very arrogant when it wishes to present itself as being the protectors of the consumers outside, and of their lot. I have before me here a passage from the speech made by the hon. member for Gardens during the discussion of last year’s Bill in which he states that he is in favour of the summary rejection and elimination of all sales duty. This is what he says on the one hand, but on the other he is frequently advocating greater concessions and assistance to the man in the street. This Government and this side of the House, which grew up with the man in the street and which suffered hardships with him, will not for a moment do anything to make matters more difficult for the taxpayer and the consumer outside. I think the National Party can justifiably say that it has a soft spot for every consumer outside. Then the hon. member for Gardens, whom I wish to deal with first, should not demand that all sales duty be abolished or rejected and advocate at the same time that the State should make greater contributions to social pensions for our lesser privileged people. After all, the Government has to find the money somewhere. I should like to tell the hon. member for Gardens and the hon. member for Constantia that they should take the trouble of studying the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in 1969 when sales duty was introduced. In that speech the hon. the Minister furnished seven very sound reasons justifying the introduction of sales duty. I think that if the hon. members wish to be fair to the country and wish to deal honestly with it, they should inform the general electorate that sales duty is a tax which was introduced for the purpose of using it to help the general public so that it would not be necessary to impose more onerous direct taxation.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the additional levy on petrol, which we are going to use for the construction of Sasol 2. In the Budget debate the hon. the Minister furnished reasons as to why this additional levy was being introduced. There were two reasons. The hon. the Minister said that the increase in the cost of road construction was one of the factors which necessitated the collection of more funds in order to deal with this task. The cost of road construction is increasing all the time, for the general public, the motorists, want to drive on a convenient road every day. They no longer want to drive on gravel roads, they want to drive on two and three-lane main roads, and the construction work involved in such roads costs money. The principle inherent in the two cent levy for Sasol 2, is to my mind a very important one. If the hon. member for Constantia adopts a standpoint against the additional levy, I want to ask the hon. member where the State should find the money. It would be a loss of approximately R115 million to R120 million per annum, which is the amount the State is collecting in this way. Where should we find the money to finance the construction of Sasol 2?

We do not wish to discuss the matter or its importance now. I do not think hon. members on the opposite side of this House would differ with us when we say that Sasol 2 is an essential institution which has to be established, but they do differ with regard to the acquisition of these funds. The hon. the Minister of Finance envisages utilizing this levy on the petrol price to finance Sasol 2. I think we should display greater loyalty to the objectives of Sasol 2, and that we should rather say that we are willing to utilize that money for that purpose and that we as motorists are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of this matter. While the hon. member for Constantia was making his speech, someone used as an interjection the defeatist expression “we are going back to the ox-wagon”. I think it is disgraceful to say that South Africa, which is a most modern country, is moving back to the period of the ox-wagon, and that simply because we are levying two additional cents on the price of petrol for the construction of that vast Sasol complex.

The hon. member for Constantia enumerated a long list of commodities in regard to which he wants the sales duty abolished. He only selected a few here or there which would suit his argument, I could very easily mention quite a number of the same items in regard to which he also wants the levy abolished, such as: Wigs, false whiskers, eye brows, eye lashes, bathroom wall cabinets, trays, grills and barbeque equipment. These are items which are not purchased every day. The important point I want to make is that at present there is no sales duty on food, something which one buys every day and needs every day. For that we can thank this Government very sincerely.

This is the message which we can convey to the general public, namely that although sales duty was at the outset also levied on foodstuffs, the Government is now in a position to be able to say that there will no longer be any sales duty on foodstuffs, but only on these commodities which are not absolutely essential and which we could easily do without. I also want to object to the statement made by the hon. member for Constantia, namely that the motorist is being exceptionally heavily burdened, and that we are no longer able to afford to travel by motor car. The hon. member need only see how crowded our roads are over the weekend, and that hon. member may ask any of those motorists: “Are you undertaking this journey today because you have to, or are you doing so for the sake of the pleasure you get out of it?” The motorist will tell him that he is doing it for pleasure, and because he is able to afford it. I really think that we should not adopt the negative standpoint that the motorist is today unable, as a result of sales duty, to go on his Sunday drive, or joy ride, or even undertake his business trip.

Order! I have to interrupt the hon. member, for the period allowed for the financial debates has now expired. The hon. the Minister of Finance will now make his reply.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia referred to a number of articles, inter alia, clothing, footwear and lawnmowers. I should just like to stress once more that this matter was thoroughly investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries and that the increased duties are being introduced on the recommendation of this board.

The hon. member also raised the matter of imported tyres and in this respect, too, I may say that this matter was also very thoroughly investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries as well as the Department of Industries. In addition to this, the hon. member delivered a plea on behalf of the motorist. I shall come to Sasol 2 in a moment. As far as the excise duty and sales duty on motor cars and fuel are concerned, this is a phenomenon which one finds throughout the world. As we know, the duties payable in South Africa, are far lower than those payable in many other countries.

The hon. member also referred to the customs duties on textiles which was imposed in September 1974. He was very critical of that and said that if the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Opposition, no problems would have arisen in this regard.

†I want to remind the hon. member that when these duties were imposed in September there was a very serious situation indeed in the textile industry. This step was then taken but only after a very careful examination of the position and after thorough and wide-ranging discussions with the industry itself. It is always an easy matter to be wise after the event. But the hon. member—and I do give him credit for it—did say at the time that goods on the water should be exempted. At the time we gave the undertaking that that matter would be investigated immediately. It was, in fact, carefully studied and as soon as the Board of Trade and Industries was able to put forward recommendations, we came in December, as the hon. member says, and announced that a rebate would be granted on those goods on the water at the time.

Steps were immediately taken to give effect to that. We had to consult the law advisers as well as to how to do this and on 24 February 1975 we were in a position to obtain formal authority to repay those amounts outstanding as a result of the decision to grant a rebate. We took immediate steps to make announcements in the various trade journals and also informed a number of commercial and industrial bodies, like the Chamber of Industries, Assocom, die Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and others, that this was then the position. As at 5 June 1975 an amount of altogether R817 802 has in fact been repaid. The hon. member says that he considers that a large amount is still outstanding, but that is not our information. It is impossible to give the exact amount. According to our information, however, the bulk of this amount has in fact been repaid—R817 000.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question arising out of his reply?

Well, let me just complete my speech and then we can come to that. I want to refer to the first of the amendments which, of course, affects the excise duty on petrol for financing a part of the capital cost of Sasol 2. There is, of course, also the 0,25 cents per litre to contribute to the cost of the National Road Fund’s operations. By now I would have thought the hon. Opposition would have realized the great strategic and economic importance of this very large enterprise, Sasol 2.

We have never disputed that.

They have constantly carped about and criticized the construction of this enterprise. We are entitled to wonder what the Opposition’s attitude to this is because we have repeatedly said that to raise over R1 000 million in loan capital at this time is financially impossible. What we are doing is raising R200 million in loan capital, on the basis of last year’s prices, I may say. We are also financing a substantial amount from export credit finance. The balance, which is the greater part, is to come out of this excise duty on petrol. It is of course a substantial duty. However, this is an absolutely essential enterprise for our future. We are trying to do this in the most practicable manner having regard to all our financial commitments now and in the six or seven years ahead. That is the position. Yet constantly the Opposition comes back, under every possible heading, to this issue, and today I want to face it head-on. The hon. member says that this is inflationary financing. I want to ask the hon. member what the alternative would be if all this money had been raised in loan capital. That would have entailed another R700 million at least. At today’s rates of interest what would be the interest burden? That would be the operating cost of Sasol 2. What would be its effect on the price of petrol?

We shall deal with that under the Finance Bill.

I hope the hon. member will. One cannot simply leave that out of account and say it is a tax and therefore puts up the price of petrol. That very big interest cost will also put up the price of petrol. That is the clear position. I think the Opposition must face this issue very clearly. Let me just say that the loss in revenue would be R115 million as far as Sasol 2 is concerned and that is the extent of the alternative financing in this financial year.

The second amendment involves the 5% sales tax on the number of items listed. We cannot reasonably see why this 5%, which is an important source of revenue and which we think is a fair tax, should now necessarily be removed. The amount involved is nearly eight million rand which has to be found elsewhere. Where do you find it elsewhere? Every tax is an impost and we think that this is a fair and in fact a very light tax in these circumstances. I would also like to say that if we make this downward adjustment, as the hon. member will appreciate, we will immediately have representations in respect of a wide range of other commodities and articles. How does one maintain a balance? One has to give good reasons why one reduces the ones that are listed by 5% but not others. It is not an easy matter. The third amendment refers to the 74% on the item 147 which must be reduced to 0.

You already overtax car owners.

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that our excise and sales duties on cars are much lower than those of many other countries of which we have the figures. This amendment, if agreed to, will result in a loss of revenue to the Treasury of approximately R37 million in this year. Where is that revenue to be found? We shall simply have to impose further taxes on other commodities.

It is this R37 million that breaks the camel’s back. Motorists are overtaxed already.

What the amendment amounts to is that passenger vehicles, with a value for the purpose of sales duty of not more than R2 850 is to be exempted from the payment of sales duty. The manufacturers of the more expensive types of passenger vehicles which are presently subject to a rate of 12½% and not 74%, will most certainly not be satisfied with that and they will feel that they are being discriminated against. It may be expected that these manufacturers will, and probably rightfully so, make representations for relief. Any relief granted in that event, will mean a further substantial loss of revenue to the State. I repeat the loss. If this third amendment alone were to be agreed to, the loss would be R37 million. If these amendments were to be accepted, the total loss of revenue which would then be abandoned, would amount to approximately R160 million. That is the extent.

Think what that will do to the cost of living.

The hon. member may say that, but we have to find the money for we must continue developing this great country. That is the position we are in. I am sorry that I cannot accept these amendments.

May I ask the Minister a question?

Order! The hon. the Minister has finished his speech.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I object to the clause but I understand that I cannot speak on it.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule 4:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister …

The hon. member cannot speak.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

(Third Reading)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister indicated that he would answer certain questions …

Order! There is no time for that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is customary this Bill deals with miscellaneous matters relating to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund.

Since the various clauses are explained in the Explanatory Memorandum which hon. members have before them, I do not deem it necessary to deal with each clause in detail, except for clause 6, in respect of which I wish to address a few words of further explanation to hon. members here.

Arising from the amendment of the Exchequer and Audit Act this session, it has also been found necessary to amend section 31 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963. The existing provisions are not clear, and are not in all respects compatible with the Exchequer and Audit Act. The position should undoubtedly be created in which Parliament is to a large extent removed from Treasury control as far as expenditure is concerned, but in which the Secretary, for the purposes of Audit, should be regarded as an accounting officer within the Public Service, with retention of the restrictions which are at present imposed in the said section 31. The measures therefore make provision for a sui generis dispensation, that is, the President of the Senate and the Speaker act in the place of the Treasury as far as Parliament is concerned, and exercise Treasury control over Parliament, while the Secretary to Parliament is made accounting officer. Both the President of the Senate and Mr. Speaker agree to this clause.

If hon. members desire any additional information on certain of the clauses, I, or the Minister concerned, shall furnish them with further particulars.

Mr. Speaker, once again I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister and to one of his departments for presenting us with an explanatory memorandum. This memorandum has made dealing with this Bill much easier for us than would otherwise have been the case. We appreciate the effort that has been made in this connection. This is an omnibus Bill, covering a number of unrelated measures, and for that reason the various measures in it are probably better dealt with in Committee Stage than in Second Reading. I will, however, summarize our attitude at Second Reading to certain of the measures contained in this Bill so that the hon. the Minister and any other Ministers who may be dealing with these matters will know in advance what our attitude is.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, which deals with the transfer of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to cover the deficit in the South West Africa Account and to cover the deficit in the Loan Account, the hon. the Minister, during his budget speech, gave us estimates of what those deficits were likely to be as he saw the position at that time I hope that he is now in a position to let us know what these deficits have in fact been. We shall also ask, under the same clause, whether he is able to elaborate and give us some explanation in regard to the grants made to the Economic Co-operation Promotion Loan Fund, and how and to whom those funds have been dispensed.

Clause 3 is the clause which is likely to cause a bit of debate, in that it deals with the 2 cent duty on petrol, which amount is being made available for the financing of Sasol 2. The clause provides for the machinery whereby that money can be put to that purpose. Our attitude in this regard is very well known to the hon. the Minister, and we shall motivate it further in the Committee Stage. We believe that so much more good could be done with this money if it were put to other purposes than the financing of Sasol 2.

Clause 4, which we can support, allows the Minister of Water Affairs to guarantee loans for the establishment of new water boards. We think this is a good measure which will save time in the development of our water supplies.

As regards clause 5, I think the less said the better, because this measure validates a practice which has been taking place for five years without the necessary legal authority. I hope that when the legal authority is granted, the Minister will have a red face. Had unauthorized funds been spent by an organization or a company in the private sector, that company would have been in for the high jump.

Clause 6 lays down financial arrangements for running Parliament. It places much more control in the hands of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of this House than has been the case in the past. In fact, it takes much of the control away from the Treasury and places it in the hands of those two gentlemen. This is a measure which has our overall support, but there is one aspect of it—this is similar to the aspect which we raised in the case of the Exchequer and Audit Bill—that we are not happy about. I refer to the fact that the Bill will authorize savings under main headings to be used not only under other main headings, but under new main headings as well. We believe that a new main heading should be established, subject to the authority of Parliament. Incidentally, in this clause the procedure deviates from that adopted in the Exchequer and Audit Bill as far as column 2 items are concerned. Whereas the former Bill allows savings under column 2 items to be used for other purposes, this Bill does not. That aspect of it we naturally support.

The remaining clauses, as far as we are concerned, contain nothing on which I wish to comment. We shall support this Bill at the Second Reading.

Sir, there are a number of issues that I would like to raise here, some of which are in the nature of questions and others in the nature of submissions. May I refer in the first place to the provisions of clause 4. This clause relates to guarantees by the Minister of Water Affairs in respect of loans raised by water boards. Here we will have another entrant into the capital market in South Africa, because we will have another borrower who will be able to go to institutions to borrow. The question that I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he thinks it is desirable to have a multiplicity of borrowers, who are in fact really the State in one form or another, and to go through the procedure of providing guarantees which have to be made available in any case, rather than to let the State be the borrower. Sir, sometimes when you have a multiplicity of borrowers you can in fact spoil the market and create different levels of interest rates depending on who the people are. It is quite a remarkable thing that even where you get the guarantee of the Government behind a loan, if the Government itself is not the borrower, for some reason that loan appears to be regarded as not quite as attractive and therefore you get a different rate applicable. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views in this regard.

Then, Sir, I would like to deal, also in the form of a question, with the economic co-operation loan fund which is referred to in clause 1. We, of course, only have accounts, based upon the auditors’ reports, for the previous financial year, and I wonder whether we cannot be told what has happened in the last year in respect of this economic co-operation fund; what money there is available for this, whether in fact the money is being spent and to what purpose it is being spent. I would like to get some details from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

As far as the strategic oil fund is concerned, I would like to raise a number of issues with the hon. the Minister. Sir, I accept the difficulties that there are in seeking to enter a capital market on which tremendous demands are already made for South Africa’s capital expansion and in introducing another demand for what is really a billion rand in order to finance Sasol 2. I see this as a very real problem because the capital requirements of South Africa are so tremendous that if you add to them you only make the situation worse. But, Sir, I think it is an incorrect argument to suggest that all the money would be required now because obviously this is a long-term project; it is not going to be finished this year or next year. The important issue, I think, is whether in fact the initial expenditure in respect of Sasol 2 could not have been financed by means of loan capital so as not to impose this burden on the taxpayers at a time which is an inflationary time. Sir, everybody concedes that this is an awkward time from the point of view of inflation. It should have been possible to cover the initial expenditure by means of loan capital, and the matter could then have been reviewed at a later stage. This would have reduced the impact of inflation. There is little doubt that not only is the motorist the one who is affected, but this increase will have an indirect effect upon increases in costs. On top of that, those indirect increases will create an inflationary expectancy which in turn will create more inflation, and for that reason it would have been preferable, to finance this by means of loan capital in the very early stages during this difficult period.

The second point I want to raise is this: In terms of clause 3(2)(a), the purpose for which this money may be used is not only for the establishment of Sasol 2. which everyone has talked about, but what is interesting is that it may also be used for what are revenue items. In other words, in terms of this it may be used for the acquisition of coal, not only for the exploitation of coal and the establishment, presumably, of coal mines, but it goes further; h may even he used for the marketing of the product. The power which is given here is not only to utilize the money for the purpose of defraying the capital expenditure in connection with Sasol 2 but also to defray revenue expenditure. This clause is very wide in its ambit. It may be just a question of draftsmanship or it may actually be intended to use the levy obtained from petrol and similar products in order to provide revenue expenditure for Sasol. I think we need some explanation as to what is really intended here, because until now we have only been told that this money is going to be used for capital expenditure to establish Sasol 2. Then, Sir, if you look at subparagraph (ii) of the same subsection (2Xa) you find that it may be used for any other purposes as well. So it is therefore not limited to the capital expenditure in respect of Sasol 2. On the contrary, it may be used for a large number of other items. Sir, these are matters on which. I for one would like to have some reply from the Ministers concerned.

In regard to matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Part I, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister three questions. Firstly, in regard to the rebate to be paid to importers, am I correct in saying that after the decreased duty was gazetted on 6 December 1974, those importers could have been paid out during December 1974?

What are you referring to now?

The rebate to importers.

On what?

On textiles. I am referring to item 460.24, which is to be a charge to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Which section is the hon. member referring to?

I am referring to item 460.24 in Schedule No. 4. Now the three questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister are these. Am I correct that after the Minister gazetted the rebates on 6 December 1974, the importers could have been paid out during December 1974? That is the first question. Secondly, were the Opposition and the importers wrongly advised by the Government when they advised us on 12 December 1974 and on 28 February 1975 that refunds would only be paid after the Act was promulgated? In the circumstances I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, thirdly, whether he is not prepared to recommend that interest be paid on these amounts in view of the fact that both the Opposition and the importers were misinformed by the Government?

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply to the first question with regard to the question of the deficits on the South West Africa Account and the Loan Account. The latest figure for the South West Africa Account is R9,2 million and for the Loans Account, R189 million. These, however, are not the final figures. The final figures will be available by the end of the month, but I think these will be very close to the final figures.

The hon. member for Constantia said that the official Opposition would have more to say in the Committee Stage and I shall, therefore, leave those matters at that. As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, he spoke on clause 4. He put it to me like this: “Should we have a multiplicity of borrowers in the capital market?”

†This is a question of the Minister of Water Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, being empowered to give a guarantee in respect of the Rand Water Board. Sir, it is of course very clearly a question of co-ordination and this is something we are doing very carefully through the Reserve Bank and the Department of Finance. I would point out to the hon. member that of course we already have a large number of public bodies in the capital market. Take the local authorities. A number of local authorities have the power to seek loans but, as I say, it is a matter which is being very carefully co-ordinated and I think that is the safeguard. Of course this is simply a question of empowering the Minister to give guarantees in respect of these loans.

Then the hon. member for Walmer has put questions in regard to textiles, but with respect. I think the hon. member is talking about the Customs and Excise Act.

It is charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I would say that this is a matter which should have been raised under the Customs and Excise Bill. [Interjections.] The Government has not misled the public, nor has it misled the hon. member for Walmer. The hon. member for Walmer has had correspondence with us and we have replied to him. The information is available. As to the question of why they could not be paid in December, I can tell hon. members that the legal authority had to be clarified, as was said a moment ago in the previous debate. We dealt with that matter as fast as we could in association with the law advisers. We paid out just as fast as we could discover who the people were to whom the money was payable. That is the position.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised some other matters such as Sasol and related matters. These matters will be handled by my hon. colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I suggest that it could be done in the Committee Stage if the hon. member has no objection to it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I raised the issue of the Economic Co-operation Promotion Loan Fund in the Second Reading. I think it must not escape the hon. the Minister’s attention. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs could deal with it now.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to have the information which the hon. member for Yeoville asked for in regard to the purposes to which these funds will be put. What is the amount that has been lent out of the fund, and to whom has it been lent? I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give us that information.

The figures which are contained in the Controller and Auditor-General’s report indicate that this fund has a working capital of over R18 million, all of which is invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, plus recoverable loans of nearly R16 million, giving a total of R34 million. I appreciate that these are funds which are handled by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and unfortunately he is not present in the House at the moment. I also appreciate that it may be difficult to give details in regard to the questions which have been put. If the hon. the Minister is not able to give this House the desired information, I ask him to take a senior member of the Opposition into his confidence in this matter. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what policy the Government has in regard to building up this fund, what size do they regard as being necessary? The fund already has a capital of R34 million, to which an additional grant of R6 million has been added this year. The Government must have in mind some sort of ultimate size for this fund. I shall be very glad to hear what the position is.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members asked whether I was able to give an answer—even if it was in general terms—to the question as to whom had received aid from the particular fund and what the amounts were that had been given to the respective recipients. I want to confirm at once that the utilization of amounts from this fund is a matter which is naturally handled by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Agairs, as the hon. member for Constantia quite correctly remarked. The hon. member will understand that it is not advisable nor in the national interest for us to discuss in public the details of the utilization of this fund; indeed, the hon. member’s request that we should inform a senior member of the Opposition about this in private, actually confirms that the hon. member, too, realizes that this is in fact a very delicate subject which we are dealing with and that it may not be possible to give him the information in public. Suffice it to say that it is not possible for me to furnish this information. The hon. member will also know that this holds true of other spheres as well. For example, our foreign trade figures, too, are no longer published in terms of individual countries, but in fact in terms of particular regions. In pursuance of the request of the hon. members I shall talk to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to see to what extent it is possible to inform hon. members of the Opposition on a confidential basis. I hope this will satisfy the hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the delicacy of the matter and I appreciate the problems, but I would like to put a couple of other points to the hon. the Minister …

That was not my idea. I thought the hon. member was going to put a question to me.

I am going to put this to the hon. the Minister in the form of points and the hon. the Minister can respond to it in that form. One of the difficulties I have … [Interjections.]

*I beg your pardon; I thought you had finished your speech.

I thought the hon. member wanted to put a question to me. I just want to proceed by saying that at this stage the Government has no intention of paying any particular target amount into this fund. The utilization of the fund and the appropriation of moneys for the fund will naturally have to be determined by the demands made on the Government from time to time in connection with assistance of this nature.

The point I would like to put to the hon. the Minister perhaps also applies to the hon. the Minister of Finance because it is an accounting matter as well. I am concerned about the showing of the figures in the auditors’ accounts in respect of the state of these funds. As I see the picture, the success of a détente movement is in some respects related to this. If we get on to the proper kind of terms with people, we are going to find that we will in fact be expected to give aid and loans and that a completely new relationship will exist. The mere fact that very little is happening in this account is a reflection upon what the activities are. I regard the figures as being relatively low. The state of the account is of such a nature that if we were involved in a particular project, the figure of R10 million in terms of our budget could very readily be made available to another State outside South Africa. I wonder how desirable it is to publish, in the auditors’ accounts figures which can be used in order to demonstrate whether or not success is being achieved in a particular direction which, as the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out, is a very delicate direction. I wonder whether one cannot in fact discuss this with the Minister of Finance in order to see whether the whole of the presentation of this kind of thing cannot be done in a different way so that the Select Committee on Public Accounts can be given accounts and can deal with it in a form which is in the public interest, rather than have a debate of this nature in this House on a very, very delicate matter. It is not a question of Parliament not having the control, because the Select Committee on Public Accounts will exercise that control on behalf of Parliament. I think it is far too delicate to have this kind of thing dealt with in this particular way.

Mr. Chairman, the last question is purely and simply a question for the hon. the Minister of Finance and is in fact, an accounting question. Therefore I do not want to react to it. However, I do want to react briefly to one particular aspect, and this is that I do not think we should try and make the deduction that the size of this fund which is under discussion is any indication of the economic co-operation with other countries or of the co-operation with such countries in the field of trade. This is not reflected here. It would—and I say this for the sake of the record—be an incorrect deduction to make that this fund allegedly was an indication of the sum total of our co-operation in the field of trade, in other words, economic co-operation, in the ordinary course of events with other countries on the Continent and in Europe.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to confirm what my hon. colleague has said. He put it quite clearly. I had the same point in mind. This is a very special and specialized fund and in no way does it reflect what we are doing in this broad field. I have tried to indicate this in this House earlier during this session. However, as far as the hon. member’s specific point is concerned, that is in regard to the presentation of details, obviously this is something I will have to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I realize, as does the hon. member, that it is a delicate matter, as my hon. colleague has said. I can therefore give no undertaking on the point, but I am prepared to take it up with my colleague.

Clause agreed to.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause in this Bill that we oppose most strongly. The hon. the Minister, when I raised the subject earlier this morning sighed with impatience. He must not sigh with impatience. This is an important matter, and this is the place where it should be discussed. The purpose of this clause is to provide the mechanism whereby the increase in customs and excise duties on petrol shall be made available to finance the second Sasol. First of all I would like to say, without any ambiguity, that we on this side of the House support the establishment of a second Sasol. Experience has taught us over the past few years, with oil supplies and oil prices becoming a problem, that we need to take steps to become less dependent on imported crude oil supplies. I would like to say that if there is any country in this world that should be able to make a success of an oil from coal project, it should be South Africa. We have an abundance of coal resources that are reasonably cheaply mined, and we have the advanced technical know-how which has been gained from Sasol 1, which I believe puts us in the lead in the whole world in so far as oil from coal technology is concerned. I believe that Sasol 2 is going to be a success. Sasol 1 had a lot of teething troubles, which it has now overcome, and it has now become a viable proposition. Sasol 2 should have advantages over Sasol 1 in that it will be able to learn from Sasol 1’s teething troubles, and it should also have the advantage of being a much larger scale project.

It is the method of financing Sasol 2 by taxing the people for a large part of the capital that is going to be required, and pushing up the cost of living in the process, that we object to. The hon. member for Worcester indicated that because we were opposed to this method of financing, we were living in the ox-wagon stage. If anybody is living in the ox-wagon stage, it is the hon. member for Worcester. Would that hon. member say that if a bank required to raise additional capital for its expansion, and it decided to do so by way of a rights issue, and not just by putting up its ledger fees and its overdraft rates, that bank was living in the ox-wagon stage because it did not know what a computer meant? That is the analogy that that rather unfortunate hon. member drew.

You oppose everything.

They are not in the ox-wagon stage, but the sledge age, because they have not discovered the wheel yet.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has said that the Government has chosen this method of financing Sasol 2 in order to relieve Sasol 2 from a substantial future interest and repayment burden. This method had also been chosen, by implication, because the Government considers that there may difficulty in raising loan finance of this magnitude. That is the implication I drew from what the hon. the Minister of Finance has said. Dealing with the second point first. I do not believe that with the high credit rating which South Africa enjoys there should be any difficulty in raising the loan capital required to finance Sasol 2 particularly when account is taken of the fact that this money will be spent over a relatively long period of time and that the finance can be raised over a relatively long period of time. As far as relieving Sasol 2 of an interest and re-payment burden is concerned, to me the idea of financing this project in this way shows a lack of faith in the ultimate success of the project. It is an admission that Sasol 2 to be a success is going to require subsidization. We on this side do not share that lack of faith in Sasol 2. If Sasol 1. with all its teething problems, has succeeded as it has done in becoming a viable proposition without subsidization, financed by Joan capital and not through taxation, I see no reason whatsoever why Sasol 2 should not follow in its elder brother’s footsteps.

But whoever spoke about subsidizing Sasol?

Of course this is subsidization. If giving a business undertaking something for nothing is not subsidizing that business then I do not know what the word subsidize means. We on this side of the House believe that the money that is being raised in this way from the increased duty on petroleum products could be put to much better use in other ways. It could be put to better use in expanding our educational services. It could be put to better use in subsidizing foodstuffs and lowering the cost of living. For the reasons I have advanced we on this side of the House will oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I just want to ask the hon. member for Constantia whether he agrees with the hon. member for Hillbrow that we should give Sasol to the private sector. That was the plea which the hon. member for Hillbrow made in this House the day before yesterday. I do not think the hon. member for Constantia will be so irresponsible as to agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow as far as that is concerned.

I am asking you to do what you did with Sasol 1.

Let us just return for a moment to the case pleaded by the hon. member for Constantia. He said he agreed that for strategic and other reasons there had to be a Sasol 2. He also agreed that it had to be larger as its production could then be so much bigger. The basic objection which the hon. member has is against the method of financing the second Sasol. He went on to say that one of the reasons for his objecting was because, inter alia, a levy was now being imposed on fuel which had to provide part of the financing. According to his arguments, this would amount to a subsidization …

It is a subsidization.

The hon. member must give me a chance. It seems to me as if this is the hon. member’s swan-song, because he experienced a revival for a moment. Strangely enough, the hon. member’s plea is that we should finance this project, the cost of which is estimated at approximately R1 020 million, from loan capital. That is his argument. It should be financed exclusively from loan capital. And then he and his party are the people who, together with others, are looking into the total capital programmes which have to be undertaken in the public sector over the next seven or eight years, programmes amounting to from R37 000 million to R40 000 million. The hon. member now says that when we consider one particular project in isolation, we should decide without more ads to finance it exclusively from loan capital. If I understood him correctly, he also said that our credit-worthiness—he calls it “our credit rating”—in the international capital markets was so good that we would find it easy to borrow the money. In other words, he went on to ask that we borrow all the capital abroad. Would the inflationary effect of such a step not be far greater than the effect of the method we are proposing now? Let us be fair now. Surely it is possible for the consumer to effect savings in respect of many aspects of fuel consumption.

Order!

Yesterday, when the hon. member was wearing a different hat, he was one of the people who supported the anti-inflation programme. Part of this programme was fuel saving on the part of the consumer. This would have the effect of reducing the consumer’s total cost of living. Surely he has control over that. Now I want to conclude.

Let us now, in all fairness, compare the fuel prices in South Africa with those in other countries. What is the comparative position? I think that the hon. member will concede that although it is impossible to compare incomparable things, we are dealing here with a commodity which is comparable, because most countries, just like South Africa, are dependent on other sources for this commodity.

Order!

In Belgium the petrol price is 25 cents per litre. In Denmark it is 24.1 cents per litre—I am choosing the figures quickly. In France, the price is 26.2 cents per litre and in South Africa—and here I am taking the least favourable figure, viz. the price on the Rand, far from the harbours—the price is 18 cents per litre. Is it too much to ask that the users of vehicles and of roads should contribute to the establishment of a particular industry which is of value to all of us? Therefore, the standpoint of the Government is that the financing of this project should consist of three parts. The first consists of loan funds, the second of credit arrangements—other countries exporting credit to us—and the third is the specific method we have proposed here. Seen in this way, and with regard to the price in South Africa, in comparison with other countries, it is not an unreasonable standpoint to expect that this duty should be levied. After all, this country spends a vast amount from direct revenue on the road and transport systems to make it easier and cheaper in many other fields for the consumer of fuel, in other words the motorist. Although the hon. member objected to this, I want to ask him at least to accept this explanation. Now I just want to reply to a question put by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that he noticed in subsection (2) that mention had been made of marketing. He said that he was under the impression that the duty will be used for the capital expenditure which Sasol has to incur. [Interjections.]

Order! There are a few hon. members who are paying no heed to the ruling of the Chair. If they do not do so, I shall have to mention their constituencies.

They are not interested.

I just want to explain that there is expenditure which Sasol will have to incur, but it is not foreseen that this duty will be used for the financing of marketing costs which are payable from ordinary revenue. It will only be used for capital expenditure such ns the cost of the erection of storage tanks, the cost of the erection of filling stations and for the purchase of material for transport.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking this afternoon about what I think is a fairly fundamental issue. We are talking about the development of Sasol as a part of the general spectrum of the development of new fuel resources in South Africa. I do not believe there is anybody in this House who would question that in respect of the whole energy spectrum, South Africa had to look very closely at its future, at its sources of supply and at its degree of independence in providing for essential and strategic supplies of fuel. Therefore we on this side of the House entirely support, for tactical and strategical reasons, the development of Sasol 2. There is no question about this: we support it in full. We believe it is necessary for South Africa not only to develop Sasol 2 as a new source of oil supply derived from what resources we have in the shape of fossil fuels, in the shape of coal, but that we also have to develop the whole broad spectrum which includes nuclear sources of energy, and in due course, I believe, other sources such as geothermal sources and solar sources of energy. If this country is going to maintain its position in the Southern Hemisphere and in the world, it is going to have to look for its fuel resources to a very much broader spectrum than we have yet done. I believe that qualities of imagination, of investment and of planning will be required that we have not yet contemplated. I believe, Sir, that this is essential to our own future and our own security in a very troubled world.

What we are questioning is in fact the methods that we will use. We believe that we are a free enterprise society. We are dedicated to the maintenance of free enterprise, to the maintenance of opportunism, to the maintenance of the power of capital to produce the kind of results which we have in mind. We have here a project, designed to depend entirely upon the State through its ability to raise resources from the taxpayer; and at the behest of the State, to produce, without the degree of efficiency produced by private competition, without the benefits of the capital system, the kind of results that we wish to attain. Sir, we have got to make up our minds now whether we are going to be a socialistic society, or Whether we are going to be a capitalistic society, because this is really what it is really all about. If you are going to run your energy programme, which will assume an enormous degree of importance in the future development of South Africa, on the basis of a State-controlled system which will rely on the levy of taxes from people, at the behest of the State, in order that the State may command the heights of the economy—the control of land, the control of investments, and so forth—then in fact we are heading rapidly towards socialism, towards a communist type of society. Sir, we have many people here standing up and defending the free enterprise society of South Africa. They claim, as against communism, all kinds of benefits, advantages and merits for the free enterprise society, but slowly, insidiously, this particular Government is in fact incorporating, developing and accepting the principles of a socialistic society. Sir, as soon as a Government commands the heights of the economy—the control of land, the control of investments, the control of financial enterprise in this country—we are in fact removing from private enterprise those very merits, those very qualities, which make us a free society, which make us different from communist and socialistic societies. This Government, which pleads so hard that South Africa should remain part of the free world and part of the free enterprise society, is at the same time insidiously and slowly incorporating those very qualities of a State-controlled society which we oppose and consider dangerous, and which are the reason why we marshal our troops on the border of our country to prevent the infiltration of that kind of idea into our country. What is it all about? What are we fighting for? Why are we prepared to send young men to the frontiers to defend a particular type of society? It is precisely because we believe in a special way of life, in a special kind of freedom.

Which Bill are you discussing now?

I am discussing the principle that the State, by taxing the individual, should take command of an enterprise which is vital to the development of the economic future of this country. I think that is fundamentally what we are arguing about. The hon. the Minister of Defence very frequently waxes hot about matters in respect of which I very often agree with him. He is concerned about the maintenance of a way of life, a particular attitude and a particular philosophy of life, and he is prepared to send his troops to the border to defend it, and yet here, in this very Parliament, insidiously, we find principles being introduced into our economy, ideas and concepts which are typical of the socialistic State-controlled society. If we wish to develop Sasol 2. we on this side of the House are in favour of it. We believe that for tactical, strategic and political reasons we should be immune from and above the pressures and the threats of the socialistic world. We are defending ourselves against attacks on a particular system, on a particular way of life. If we ourselves, in our economic institutions, introduce these very things, we proceed to turn our own State into a socialistic State, and are opening the gate before our troops have even marched up to defend them. This is what it is about, and I am astonished that members on that side of the House who are so concerned about these matters, who are prepared today to lay down their lives to defend our particular way of life, should be tamely prepared to surrender the keys of the gate with Bills such as these which are a kind of surrender to a principle which we are dedicated to oppose. I believe that if we wish to make ourselves immune from the pressures of the outside world in respect of this most vulnerable matter, that is to say, independence in respect of energy, the key to development in the modern world, then this is something which has got to be done in terms of our private enterprise system. It is something which can be done through and by means of our private enterprise system. Sir, if we are to turn this into a State enterprise, into an organization which is run by the State for the State and on behalf of the State, then I believe it is entirely wrong.

I see hon. Ministers on that side shaking their heads. It causes me a kind of mental despair, a kind of mental exhaustion, because it is distressing to me to see that hon. members on that side of the House who defend these principles so strongly when they talk about politics, do not realize that this is in fact the economic Trojan horse. They are introducing into our order a kind of State participation … [Time expired.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, clause 6 of this Bill seeks to introduce certain provisions into the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act whereby the Secretary to Parliament will become an accounting officer and Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate will be given certain powers. The powers which it is sought to bestow upon Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate are the same as those that have been bestowed upon the Minister of Finance in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Bill, with one exception. The exception is that Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate shall not have the power, as the hon. the Minister has, to transfer amounts saved on “Column 2” items to other items within the same head under “Column 2”.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Constantia raised with the hon. the Minister our objection to the fact that it is now sought to give to Mr. Speaker and to the President of the Senate the power to transfer savings on one main head to a new main division. During the debate on the Exchequer and Audit Bill we made our attitude quite dear in regard to this principle. We believe that in principle it is bad and wrong that the control of Parliament should be so completely removed that an accounting officer, or in this case Mr. Speaker himself, should be allowed to transfer funds for use for a purpose that has never been before Parliament. In other words, we now get to the stage where parliamentary control over expenditure is being completely removed. We objected to this under the Exchequer and Audit Bill and, in fact, we registered our protest as strongly as we could when that Bill was before the House.

However, I have been persuaded that in this case we are dealing with a special situation where this is directly under the control of Mr. Speaker and of the President of the Senate and where we have a House committee which in fact controls nearly all of the expenditure, although it is done in the name of Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate. Accordingly, I shall not move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, but I should sincerely like to hear the views of the hon. the Minister on how he believes this power is going to be exercised by Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate.

Do not spoil your good record.

Mr. Chairman, my answer will be brief I just want to reply to the question which, the hon. member put at the end of his speech. The intention of this clause is very clear, viz. to give legal effect to what has been happening in practice, in that Parliament is now being exempted from Treasury control. In the proposed new subsection (5), the Speaker himself is being given authorization in regard to the implementation of virement procedures, since Parliament is not covered by the Exchequer and Audit Bill. That is why such a power is necessary. The Speaker acts here in the place of the Treasury. In terms of clause 6 of the Exchequer and Audit Bill, this power is exercised by the Minister of Finance, as the hon. member realizes. Since 1911 this power to utilize a saving for a new main division—the old name was “subhead”—as well, has been repeated every year in the Appropriation Act. We spoke about this at length when we discussed the Exchequer and Audit Bill. Now this is also being stipulated in the new Exchequer and Audit Bill of 1975 as a standing power. In my opinion, it is out of the question that any new principle is involved here.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether these amounts will be reported somewhere so that Parliament will at least know what is happening to the money it has voted. The situation is that Parliament will vote so much money to Parliament and Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate will utilize the money broadly on a basis of what is specified in the Estimates as we had them in the past. When a change takes place and expenditure is incurred under a new main division, in other words, for an item which has never been before this House, will this House be in some way advised, and if it will be advised, how will it be advised that the money has been spent on an item which has never been before the House?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that where any additional amount is agreed to, it will appear in the Additional Appropriation. As far as Parliament is concerned, the figures will definitely be made known to the House. That is the position.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the invidious position this afternoon where I have to thank the hon. the Minister for the amendment which he has brought about in the Senate. I want to say that I am thanking him with long teeth because unfortunately I can only thank the hon. the Minister for half a job. When the hon. the Minister left this place with the Bill to take it to the Other Place he was going to amend the Bill according to certain proposals made and discussed during the debate, but I now find that the hon. the Minister has only gone halfway. When I say that I have to thank him, it is for at least accepting the principle that the Auditor-General shall not be appointed for a specified period not exceeding five years. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister has gone only halfway, because the point I made to him at the time was that I believe that Parliament should have control over the Auditor-General and that it should be made quite clear to him that he is in fact a servant of Parliament. What is the effect of the amendment we have here? If we look at the new sub-section (6) as amended in the Senate, we see that the State President may suspend the Auditor-General at any time, perhaps even during the recess, and he shall immediately report thereupon to Parliament. If Parliament wishes to reinstate the Auditor-General, then by a petition from both. Houses of Parliament to the State President he may be reinstated. If Parliament wishes to confirm the suspension of the Auditor-General, the only way in which it can be done is for Parliament to neglect to make any recommendation to the State President. The effect of this is that South, Africa will find itself with no Auditor-General for a period of five months the five months during which Parliament sits. There is no provision here whatsoever for the dismissal of the Auditor-General under any circumstances by anybody, except in those circumstances, i.e. where the State President suspends him and Parliament fails to recommend that he should be reinstated, the State President will automatically ratify the suspension and declare the post of the Auditor-General vacant at the expiration of the session of Parliament in terms of subsection (6)(d) of the clause. I believe that the hon. the Minister has to look into this position. It is not competent for me this afternoon to move a suitable amendment in order to rectify the situation. I believe that the Minister and myself are ad idem on this point and I believe that somewhere along the line somebody has forgotten about this and has not made provision for it. I believe that the hon. the Minister must consider this and I will be very glad to have from him an undertaking that he will, at the earliest opportunity, have a look at the shortcoming in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will remember that when he raised this matter with me in this House I undertook to change the provision that the Auditor-General would be appointed for five years as provided in subsection (2), and I also said that for the rest I would obviously have to look into the implications of the other parts of the hon. member’s amendments most of which were consequential. I certainly did not commit myself by saying anything further than that I would remove the fixed period of the appointment and that I would examine the whole position in the light of that. This is what I did and as a result of that we came with the amended version of the whole clause and we dealt with it in the Senate. The position is that when the State President appoints the Auditor-General we believe that it is right that the State President should be the authority who can dismiss him. That is the position. We have set out how we propose that should be done. This means that the State President suspends the Auditor-General provided that there are one or more of three specified grounds which apply. That having been done, Parliament then has an opportunity by way of a petition from both Houses to disagree and say that they would like the Auditor-General to be reinstated. He shall then be reinstated. In this respect Parliament is supreme. The Auditor-General is an officer who is usually appointed for long periods. There have not been many Auditors-General over a long period of time, but this does not affect the principle of what the hon. member is saying. I merely want to say that in that particular case which the hon. member mentioned there might be a delay. If, however, it is so, then we can always arrange for an Acting Auditor-General to be appointed. The hon. member was kind enough to draw my attention to this possibility yesterday. I have looked at it again, but this is a considered amendment which we put to the Senate where it was argued. I regret I cannot accept the further difficulty of the hon. member. This is a considered amendment.

Amendments in clause 41 agreed to.

Amendments in clauses 13 and 42 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill merely gives effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions of 1975. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been agreed to by this hon. House and the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, this Bill is to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions which have already been accepted by this House. We on this side of the House welcome this Bill as it will bring relief to a group of persons as indicated in the Schedule of the Bill. In making comment in regard to this Bill, I would like to say that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the number of petitions has decreased over the years, and this Bill that is now before us has one of the shortest Schedules that any Pensions Supplementary Bill has ever had. This is an advantage in that while there are certain administrative difficulties which can only be overcome by a petition to Parliament and the enactment of the Pensions Supplementary Bill other matters can be done by means of amending legislation from time to time. I would like to refer particularly to two items in the Schedule. The first is Item No. 1, which deals with the compensation that is being granted to the widow of a person who was in the employ of the South African Railways. Her husband died as result of contracting asbestosis which at that time was not a scheduled disease in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I also want to refer to Item No. 3 which is also the case of a widow whose husband died as a result of asbestotis on 2 February 1975 and who in similar circumstances had to petition Parliament by virtue of the fact that this disease was not scheduled in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I want to refer particularly to the first case because the widow whose husband died as far back as April 1974 has had to wait for a considerable period of time before being awarded the compensation which will be forthcoming with the passing of this Bill. My request to the hon. Deputy-Minister is that where cases of this nature come to light, he as the responsible Minister will bring them to the attention of the Minister who deals with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, viz., the hon. the Minister of Labour. That hon. Minister could perhaps amend that Act to ensure that such widows would not have to resort to the rather lengthy procedure of having to petition Parliament and not have to wait for a Bill such as this to be passed by the House before being awarded the compensation to which they would have been entitled had this been a scheduled disease at the time of the death of their late husbands.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Mr. Chairman during the Second Reading debate I mentioned two aspects concerning items in the Schedule viz. Items 1 and 3. I requested the hon. the Deputy Minister to approach his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour, to look into the question of a shortcoming in the Act affecting those people who are entitled to compensation. Although the late husbands of these two widows were employees of the S.A. Railways, the sanction of Parliament must be obtained before these two widows can receive such compensation. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he will kindly approach, his colleague, the Minister of Labour—the Workmen’s Compensation Act is the responsibility of the Department of Labour—to amend the Act so that it will not be necessary for such widows to petition Parliament and go through, a lengthy procedure before they are awarded compensation. I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to have another look at these particular cases.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to discuss this with, the Ministers concerned and to bring these particular cases to their attention, so that if something of this nature were to happen again in future, it might be rectified administratively.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Commission of Inquiry into Universities found that the University Advisory Committee, which had been established in terms of section 2 of the Universities Act, was not functioning effectively, and that there was a need for the establishment of a more effective advisory body which would comply with certain main requirements. The most important of these requirements are eminent, specialized knowledge of the university and its functioning, expertise in the sphere of tertiary education, and the ability to evaluate the general interests of the State and the community vis-à-vis the universities, as well as the national interest concerning the need for all tertiary education. In addition it is important that the body should consistently be able to undertake tasks of a continuous nature, and should also be able to institute investigations on its own initiative into matters relating to its activities. All functions are, however, of an advisory nature.

In its report the commission of inquiry recommended that a University Advisory Council be established to replace the existing University Advisory Committee, and that the following activities should be entrusted to the Advisory Council—

1. (a) screening of expenditure as capital expenditure for subsidy purposes;
2. (b) proposals on priorities in regard to building projects;
3. (c) proposals in regard to items on the claim forms for State contributions to tuition costs;
4. (d) the establishment of new departments and facilities;
5. (e) the investigation of the need for the procurement of expensive equipment for utilization by more than one university;
6. (f) the addition to a university or colleges offering specific training;
7. (g) constant consideration of the adjustable elements of the formula for the State contribution;
8. (h) the compiling and maintenance of a system of building standards and price indices for the purpose of determining the State contribution to the costs of building projects; and
9. (i) the studying of the development plan of each university, the amalgamation and co-ordination of all the plans, and the periodical submission of the consolidated development plan of all universities, and general planning in the sphere of the universities, and of all tertiary education.

It is the view of the commission that the proposed advisory council be constituted as follows—

1. (a) a part-time chairman appointed by the Minister;
2. (b) two persons nominated by the Committee of University Principals and appointed by the Minister;
3. (c) one person designated by the Minister from his department;
4. (d) one person who is well-versed in matters relating to colleges for advanced technical education, who does not represent an interest, but is an independent person; and
5. (e) four persons with wide knowledge and experience of economic and financial matters of the universities’ relationships with the community and society.

In addition the commission advocates the appointment of a chief executive officer, who should be an ex officio member of the advisory council, as well as other lesser functionaries who are able to assist the advisory council in its activities. It is the intention that these office-holders should have a thorough technical knowledge with regard to the academic, financial and developmental aspects of universities.

†For reasons of sound administrative practice it is considered necessary that the executive officer and other functionaries who must assist him be appointed subject to the laws governing the Public Service. The commission’s views and recommendations with regard to the establishment of a University Advisory Council, its functions and constitution are supported in broad outline by both the Committee of University Principals and the University Advisory Committee. The Government also considers it necessary that a council be established that will be equal to the task of giving authoritative advice on all matters relating to universities. In view of the magnitude of the State’s financial contribution towards the overall expenditure of universities, taking into account the tremendous expansion in the university field as well as the complex nature of matters that must continually be dealt with in this respect, a properly functioning and expert advisory body has now become indispensable. The proposed University Advisory Council will also be required to deliberate and advise on the various recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of Enquiry into Universities. Legislation is, however, necessary to provide for the abolition of the existing University Advisory Committee and the establishment of the Universities. Advisory Council.

*Sections 2 to 5 of the Universities Act which provide for the establishment and functions of the University Advisory Committee, the constitution of the committee, the remuneration of its members and the meetings and secretarial work of the committee, are being substituted by clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill. The new provisions provide for the constitution and powers of the Universities Advisory Council, the term of office and the meetings of the Advisory Council and the assistance which may be rendered by officers to the Advisory Council.

Mr. Speaker, I said on two or three previous occasions that the proposal of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission relating to the establishment of an University Advisory Council was, in fact, the most important proposal of the commission. I also said that if the hon. the Minister were to come forward with legislation, we would support him, i.e. if the hon. the Minister had based such legislation mainly on the proposals as contained in the report. The legislation before us shows certain departures from the proposals of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. Although those departures are important ones, as I shall point out later, they are, nevertheless, not of a nature which makes it impossible for us to support the Second Reading of the Bill. In whichever way one looks at the matter, I believe that everyone is satisfied that there should be a body somewhere which is directly concerned with the universities and which can maintain a balance between all parties concerned, viz. the universities jointly, the State on the one hand and also the universities in particular. The interests of all these three groups need to be safeguarded against one another and against outsiders. Therefore, all that can be argued in this regard is the constitution and the functions of this body.

†For several decades South Africa has been searching for such a body which could act as an independent, impartial intermediary between the State and the universities. It is interesting to note, for instance, that the Government, the Opposition and the members of the van Wyk de Vries Commission have, in fact, condemned the Holloway financing formula as being unworkable. However, we are hardly original in our criticisms. We must bear in mind that originally the Holloway commissioners themselves agreed and conceded that unless there is a permanent body which can constantly pay attention to various matters related to universities, their recommendations will not work. As we are now starting with a new body also based on the recommendations of a commission, I think it is important to look at the Holloway report. I want to quote from paragraph 125 to indicate what they had in mind originally, namely a university grants commission. I quote:

Then in paragraph 127 it is stated:

It is common knowledge that at that particular time the Government did not accept the recommendations of the Holloway Commission completely, and instead of a university grants commission, the present university advisory committee was established, but the fact remains that it was established with watered-down functions and-—this is very important—without the assistance of sufficient full-time members who could act independently either from the Minister or from the Department of National Education. Sir, in paragraph 8.21 of the Van Wyk de Vries report we have a summary of the shortcomings of the present university advisory committee. In comparing these with the original recommendations as contained in the report of the Holloway Commission, in paragraphs 152 to 154, it is quite clear to me that if the Government had adhered more strictly to the original recommendations of the Holloway Commission, this apparent total breakdown of the university advisory committee would never have occurred. Here I refer in particular to two, which are now being mentioned as shortcomings of the present university advisory committee and which would, of course, have been prevented if the recommendations of that commission had been accepted. I refer in particular to the heavy burden that one full-time chairman had to carry. This was something that they warned against. The second shortcoming was the inability of the Department of National Education to provide the full-time chairman with adequate assistance in respect of technical and specialized matters. Sir, having taken full cognizance of the lessons of the past, let us now compare the proposed legislation with the recommendations as contained in the Van Wyk de Vries report. Here I submit that once again certain deviations have occurred, and I honestly hope that when we come to the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister will be able to rectify this. In paragraph 8.24 of the Van Wyk de Vries report, the commission lists seven requirements to be satisfied by a body such as is proposed in this Bill here today. Those are the prerequisites which the Van Wyk de Vries Commission laid down for such a body to be a success. Sir, I believe that the Minister has in fact given full effect to six of the seven requirements. It is when we come to requirement No. 1, however, that I feel that the hon. the Minister has only given partial effect to the Commission’s recommendation. I want to read out this particular requirement. It reads as follows—

1. (a) The cardinal feature of the body should be its independence and impartiality. It should not be subject to the authority of the Minister, nor to that of the universities. It cannot therefore be a division under the department, nor can it perform its functions through the C.U.P.

Sir, I have said that the hon. the Minister has only given partial effect to this particular recommendation. He has not given full effect to the recommendation that this body should be independent from the Minister, and he has not given effect to the recommendation that it should not be a division under the Department of National Education. Sir, let us first look at the question of independence. In clause 2 of the Bill we find the proposals concerning the composition of the council. It will consist of 10 members. With the exception of the two members nominated by the committee of the university principals and the one member nominated by the Secretary for the Department of National Education, we find that all the other members, including the chief executive officer, who is referred to as the director in the Van Wyk de Vries report, will be nominated by the Minister. When we look at clause 3, we find that it provides that a member shall vacate his office if his appointment is withdrawn by the Minister. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that to talk in these particular circumstances of a body which is independent from the Minister is to indulge in the use of euphemisms. While we support the Bill at this stage, we hope that the Minister will be able to rectify this in the Committee Stage. I realize that after all this is the Minister’s advisory council and that in one way or another he will appoint the majority of the members. In spite of the bold statement by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission that this body should not be subject to the control of the Minister, all they could think of, in addition to the three nominated members I have already mentioned, was to say that the director should be a person who will be appointed by the Minister but on the recommendation of the council. This was their attempt to give the council a degree of independence. Concerning the part to be played by the Department of National Education, the commission clearly recommended that that body, except for administrative purposes, should be completely separated from the department. In paragraph 8.31 of the commission’s report we find that it recommended a full-time director who should be a person thoroughly conversant with every aspect of universities, particularly the academic aspect. In addition, it recommended a full-time assistant director of finance, who should be well versed in university finance, and a second full-time assistant director of development, who should have a thorough knowledge of building and university planning. It also envisaged a third one, for the academic aspect, and it recommended that all of these assistant directors should be appointed in fact by the Minister on the recommendation of the council. All this was to be done in order to give it a sense of independence, but what do we find now? We now find that there is no talk about assistant directors. That is covered by clause 5, and if you read clause 5 of the Bill you will find that it says the executive officer shall be assisted by other Officers of the Department of National Education. In other words, we definitely deviate here very far from the original recommendations. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind what has happened with the Holloway Commission and its recommendations. The Minister is in fact moving too far away from what the commissioners originally recommended, especially in this respect, where we find that one of the shortcomings of the present University Advisory Committee was that it was so closely associated with the Department of National Education. We find the shortcomings listed in paragraph 8.21, which reads as follows—

Here, once again, we find in clause 5 that the recommendations of the commissioners, that these people should be completely separate, are not being followed. The assistant officers will just come from the department.

Whereas this particular body will be concerned with the establishment and the development of universities, I should urgently appeal that serious consideration be given to the claims of Pretoria to have an English-language university or, in terms of a recommendation of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, to have a campus of the Witwatersrand University in Pretoria. Of the necessity and desirability of such a campus in Pretoria, I have no doubt. All that now needs to happen is for this particular council or this body of experts to apply their minds and to work out the details. Sir, I particularly welcome the whole system of subcommittees which will be allowed in the council, as well as the important matter of having joint committees between the University Advisory Council and other educational institutions at the tertiary level, particularly the advanced colleges for technical education and the teachers’ training colleges. Joint committees will also be able to be established between the council and certain professional councils and bodies where a lot of uncertainty exists at present. Since we are now going to accept this particular council with its functions, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is still a need for the National Education Council to retain the function of advising him on matters concerning higher education. If one reads what the functions of this particular council are, one sees that they cover a very wide spectrum, in fact, they cover the whole field of higher education. I am asking this in particular in view of the finding of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission that it is against the practice of duplication of work. It appears to me that the hon. the Minister will be placed in a position where he will have two sets of advisers to advise him on matters which really concern the same level of education. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central furnished us with a reasonably detailed historical background to what led up to this Bill. It seems to me as though he has not yet forgotten all the good things he learned at the University of Potchefstroom. His historical sense is still there. The only pity is that he has deviated a little politically. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information, who represents Potchefstroom, will subsequently correct him. The hon. member supported the Bill, and we are grateful for that. The only pity is that he made a kind of insinuation that the members who would be appointed to the council by the Minister would lose their independence of thought and impartiality as a result of the fact that they had been appointed by him.

No, the body.

Surely these people are not politicians, or people who are susceptible to influence. They will be people of very high academic status, and people of exceptionally high integrity. I do not wish for a moment to believe that the people who will be appointed to the council by the Minister, will try to dance to the Minister’s tune in order, perhaps, to receive another appointment in four years’ time. I want to reject that completely. I do not even think it is necessary to mention this.

As far as the independence of the department is concerned, it is of course true that the Van Wyk de Vries Commission recommended that the director should be appointed to a post which should create a career for him. However, the council will have no funds of its own, and this is the only reason why the official will be an official of the department. The same applies to the deputy directors. Because no mention is made of the deputy directors in the Bill, 1 do not think that it should be accepted that the idea of deputy directors is being abandoned. This Bill relates only to the constitution of the council, and the deputy directors are, from the nature of the case, not members of the council and therefore it is possible to bring them in administratively.

This Bill is a very important one. The fact that it has appeared on the Order Paper at such a late stage on the last sitting day, should not serve as an indication that it is not a very important Bill. It is indeed a very important Bill, and I should like to support it whole-heartedly. Not only do I wish to support it as chairman of the education group on this side of the House, I should also like to support it as an individual who, as the hon. the Minister did in his day, has fought very hard for the establishment of a new university, and as a person who has for more than ten years had representation on the council and the senate of a university. Consequently I have a reasonable degree of knowledge and experience in regard to the problems of our universities. For that reason I say that the establishment of the council is a very important step. I believe that it is important because the publication and the tabling of the Van Wyk de Vries report has definitely ushered in a new era in our university system. The report is so comprehensive, so important and so monumental that a long period of study will still be required to ponder and possibly to implement the various recommendations which it contains. For that reason it will not be of importance only to our university training, but also to the entire spectrum of our tertiary education system. Therefore it is important that such a body should now be established.

The universities in our country are of special importance, and not only because tremendous expansion has taken place in recent years. Over the past two decades the number of students at our universities has increased by approximately 500%, from approximately 20 000 in 1955 to almost 100 000 in 1975. In addition the State subsidy in respect of universities has increased over the past two decades, and has done so by approximately 3 000%, from R5 million in 1955 to almost R150 million this year. Therefore the universities are receiving a great deal of money. If one looks at the list of expenditure of Government departments in this year’s Estimates, it appears that there are very few Government departments that are receiving as much money as the Department of National Education, and universities in turn are receiving between 80% and 90% of the amount allocated to the Department of National Education. If one takes cognizance of the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs received only R17 million, the Department of Labour R17 million, the Department of Information R11 million, etc., one realizes what a large amount is being allotted to the universities. Then one also realizes what an important function the universities have to fulfil. We are grateful that so much money is being given to the universities under the National Party Government. Nor may the universities be neglected, for they are the workshops in which our future leaders are formed and created. Therefore it is important that they should be well provided for. However, it is also a fact that the rate of the constantly increasing State subsidies to universities will have to diminish. It cannot continue to rise as it has done over the past few years. It is also important that the funds which are in fact being appropriated should be spent as efficiently and productively as possible by the universities.

To the council to which reference is made in the Bill, at least four persons will have been specially appointed owing to their wide knowledge and experience of economic and financial matters, and particularly, too, of matters relating to universities. One wants to accept that the members of this council who will be appointed on the basis of such knowledge, will be able to provide not only the Minister, but also the universities with sound advice. There are important tasks which they will have to perform. They may advise the Minister on a wide variety of matters. For example they may advise the Minister on the co-ordination of tertiary educational institutions in conjunction with the universities, but particularly on financial expenditure at universities, i.e. the capital expenditure and the system of subsidization. They will also be able to furnish advice with regard to the establishment of new departments and faculties.

Over and above the interests of the universities, this council will also be able to take the interests of the State into consideration. I do not want to allege that money is being wasted at our universities—far from it. On the other hand there are people with the idea that some universities are cutting their coats far too lavishly from the taxpayer’s cloth. It is being alleged that certain fields of study and certain faculties or departments are being established simply because certain people have a special interest in them, or because they have a snob or status value for the universities concerned, but not owing to the demand for such facilities on the part of prospective students. It frequently happens, too, that universities establish expensive facilities, for example music conservatories, very expensive facilities which can never be covered by students’ fees. Although one does not want to underestimate the cultural task of the university, and although the university is no longer an ivory tower, and therefore has to serve the community as well, it is true that a sound and satisfactory balance should be struck and that the introduction of new subjects and commodities which cost a great deal of money should be proceeded to with circumspection. In this respect I believe that the council will have a very important advisory function.

According to the recommendation of the Van Wyk de Vries report the full-time directorate should consist of three members. In the first place there is a director who shall be a member of the council. According to the recommendation in the report he should be a person possessing very specialized knowledge, particularly in the academic sphere. It would appear to me as though the commission is of the opinion that this should be a person with a university background. I want to support the idea that the director shall be a person who at least enjoys very high status and is held in high esteem in the academic world, so that he will also be capable of taking charge of new research into universities. In addition there are the two deputy directors of whom one shall have special knowledge of university finance, and the other special knowledge of university planning. The physical planning of our universities is tremendously important. A university is not planned for 10, 20 or 30 years; it is planned for a 100 years and in the course of such a period circumstances may arise of which we have no knowledge whatsoever today. Consequently the physical planning of the university is very important, and I am therefore very grateful that provision is being made for the appointment of such persons.

Since the Bill is also doing away now with the University Advisory Committee, I should like to convey my gratitude to those who served on the committee under very difficult circumstances. I want to single out one name in particular. I am referring to Prof. A. A. Cilliers, who is not in very good health at the moment. He has been chairman of this committee since 1963, and really made it his principal task to fulfil a very useful role. To the younger universities such as the Rand Afrikaanse University and the University of Port Elizabeth in particular, he was of inestimable assistance and value. I should like to pay tribute to the services he rendered and the part he played.

I should like to wish the hon. Minister and his officials strength and support in the implementation of this very important Bill which is at present before us.

Mr. Speaker, it seems as if it has taken a tremendous long time for the two hon. members who have spoken to sum up the fact that they agree with each other in regard to the Bill. [Interjections.] I want to state broadly that we are in agreement with the Bill, but I wish to do so in somewhat shorter terms.

Well, having said that, why do you not sit down?

I want to stress the point made by the hon. member for Durban Central when he spoke about the work of the council to be established, in relation particularly to its functions in regard to the development, establishment and extension of universities. I can say that one of the priorities that I hope will be placed before the new council is in fact the question of either a new campus for the University of the Witwatersrand or a new university operating for English-speaking people in the Transvaal. Such a university could probably be established in the Pretoria area. I may say that the situation in regard to the platteland English-speaking person is very difficult when it comes to obtaining accommodation at the University of the Witwatersrand and therefore it is becoming increasingly urgent that the authorities, both the Department of National Education and the Department of Education of the Transvaal Provincial Administration, give some attention to the needs of students in the Transvaal.

As a representative of the constituency of Sandton, I may say that there is a very fine piece of land at Frankenwald. There is a feeling amongst the people of Sandton that this piece of land should be utilized as the second campus of the University of the Witwatersrand. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would refer that matter also to the new council. I am supporting the Bill which arises out of the recommendations of the commission which was tabled some time ago in terms of which it was stated that a broader-based body to advise the State on university matters was urgently needed. Such a body already exists, namely, the University Advisory Committee, which has been found wanting in certain respects. It has, however, provided a link. However, these deficiencies which have been pointed out adequately by hon. members who have already spoken and by the hon. the Minister himself, have existed. During the debate the question was raised relating to the appointment of the persons concerned and to the impartiality and the independence of the body to be elected. I feel that the hon. member for Durban Central has a very good point when he says that a body can only be fully independent and impartial if it is not open to attack by the hon. the Minister in the form of the withdrawal of an appointment at any time. I wish to say, however, that while agreeing with that view, I do not think we could at this moment question the impartiality of the body at all or its independence. If we consider the composition of the body, as was stated by the hon. member for Algoa, we see that it is such …

He is standing on the bridge.

I am not. We see that the composition of the body is such that the persons who will be appointed will obviously be people of very high calibre. When we look at the appointment of judges by the State President, however, we find that those people can be described in the same terms as people of tremendously high educational standards and of high calibre, like the members of this council. The reason why we can speak about the total impartiality and independence of the Bench is because once those people are appointed they are not open to attack and they cannot be deprived of their appointments by the State except for very good reasons.

The judges are not an advisory body.

Indeed. However, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that it is important not to appoint people in an advisory capacity if they are going to give the advice one would like to hear. We want appointed—and I believe the hon. the Minister must have appointed—a body of advisers who will give the sort of advice which it is necessary to hear. In order to have independent advice, the amendment as proposed and which will be discussed at the Committee Stage by the hon. member for Durban Central, will be found to provide the necessary answer. I do wish to make it clear that I do not believe that this body will be anything but impartial. I would, however, like it to have the full independence which has been called for.

I would also like to ask—as has been asked by other members—why the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to appoint to this council the various officers mentioned in paragraph 8(3)(i) of the report. The hon. the Minister was asked to appoint three full-time staff members—a director, an assistant-director etc.—and I do think that this recommendation is of particular value. I also see that there is no provision for regular meetings to be held. I think the Bill merely states that the meetings will be convened at the behest of the council or the chairman of the council. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us some indication as how often such a body will meet because I do feel that for this body to be effective —and we would like it to be effective—it should at least meet more often than the previous council did.

I think it will be useful to this House and the authorities if such a council did in fact, as was recommended in the commission’s report, produce an annual report of its work and of the advice it has given and perhaps even of the action that has been taken in terms of that advice. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would like to react to that.

The last matter I want to mention is directed at the hon. the Minister and not so much at the legislation. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that this body is balanced in so far as both English and Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned. I think the English-speaking people will want to play a role in this council and, moreover, do everything possible to ensure the development of our South African universities and of harmonious relationships between the universities and the State. We would all be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would give due recognition to the English-speaking community in appointing such a body.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that all three parties in this House support this Bill in principle. I am very grateful for that, and I think it will also be encouraging for the Universities Advisory Council, when it is established, to be able to begin its activities with the unanimous support of this House. I also agree with the hon. member for Algoa that we are dealing here with important legislation, although it is very brief, because the deliberations of the council could have great significance in future not only for the universities, but also for the development of our country. It seems to me the main problems which the hon. members of the Opposition have with this Bill centre around the concepts of independence of the Minister or his department, and impartiality. Although we shall go into these points in greater detail during the Committee Stage, I want to put it like this: It seems to me as though he hon. member for Durban Central lost sight of the fact that if one wishes to establish a completely impartial body which will be fully detached from the Department of National Education and the Minister, then it has to be a body which is capable of performing certain functions of its own accord. I want to make this clearer on the basis of the recommendations in respect of the chief executive official, or the director, as he is called in the Van Wyk de Vries Report. It is advocated that a person of eminent academic status should be appointed. It should be a person capable of doing research work, of thinking independently, who has knowledge of universities, who is conversant with the requirements of the country, and so on. This post should offer him a career, there should be a very good salary attached to it, and provision should also be made for pension benefits for such a person. In other words, the employer of the person should be capable of making these facilities available to him, and of offering him these benefits. The hon. member will understand that an advisory body that has no sources of income of its own, is not capable of employing such a person. The only solution is that such a person, when he is appointed, wherever he may come from, shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act. In other words, he shall have to become an official of my Department. This will offer him a satisfactory salary, pension benefits and a career, for he will be able, from that position, to compete for any post for which he is qualified in my Department, and he will also be able to compete in the universities for any post for which he qualifies. In addition I want to point out to the hon. member that the present University Advisory Committee also consists of persons who were all appointed by the Minister, and I think that I can state, with a clear conscience, that I have never found that any recommendation that was made on the part of the committee was made simply in order to comply with my wishes. The kind of person whom the Minister appoints to this council, in exactly the same way as the persons serving on the University Advisory Committee, is not the kind of person with whom one can play that kind of game. Serving on the present University Advisory Committee is the chairman, Prof. H. B. Thom, a person who for years was the head of a major university. Also serving on this body are persons such as Dr. C. van der Merwe Brink, the president of the C.S.I.R., Dr. A. J. A. Roux, the president of the Atomic Energy Board, and Dr. D. G. Franzsen of the Reserve Bank, to mention only a few to hon. members. The hon. members will agree with me that this is not the kind of person who will give the hon. the Minister only that advice which he should like to have, as an hon. member put it. These are people who are accustomed to thinking analytically, to taking a variety of factors into consideration, and to expressing their opinions on a matter unequivocally. This is the kind of advice we need. I want to go further and say that these are not the kind of persons who are susceptible to the moods of any Minister either. Therefore there is no question of one being able to get rid of these persons as it suits one, or they do not suit one. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that although this is not provided in the Bill, the person to whom reference is being made in clause 5, namely the chief executive officer, who shall also be a member of this council, is the person who is described in the report as the director. He shall be one of the three members of the directorate who will be placed at the disposal of this Universities Advisory Council. I could reassure the hon. member for Algoa by saying that it would not be sensible if we did not appoint the very best person who is available to this office. He may therefore rest assured that this will be a person who is held in high esteem by the universities. We shall try to find such a person from among their number. With that, however, I do not want to say that it will be possible or that it will not be possible. Nevertheless, we shall try to find a person who is held in high esteem in the academic world.

As far as the supporting staff is concerned, to which the hon. member for Durban Central also referred, I want to reassure him that we summarize it all in this single description, but that what we do in fact have in mind, as I have already said, is three persons of the high academic calibre I have already mentioned, plus a supporting staff, such as the persons we are at present making available to the Education Council. In other words, these are persons who are capable of doing administrative and secretarial work, as well as a typist, for this council has no means of employing any official itself. The hon. member may therefore be satisfied that we shall establish a directorate with the staff which it will require. I am aware that the universities have for many years—I have taken cognizance of this since I became Minister—been striving to bring about the establishment of some or other separate body which will occupy itself with and make an exhaustive study of the university system. With the constitution of this council, the directorate and a body of officials, I intend to comply with their wishes as far as possible.

The hon. member for Sandton supported the Bill, and I am very grateful for that. The hon. member went further and began to count chickens before they had hatched. He asked me to instruct this council to consider as one of their top priorities the expansion of the University of the Witwatersrand, or rather the establishment of a second campus for the University of the Witwatersrand. I have no intention of prescribing to this council precisely what it should do first. This council will have a formidable task, for I regard the council and its directorate as a continuation of the work done by this commission of inquiry. Hon. members themselves saw what a bulky report the commission tabled, and how many problems there are which we could discuss, and which still have to be solved. In any case the hon. member may rest assured that this council will determine its own activities. He also asked how frequently the council would meet. One of the clauses of the Bill provides that the council shall meet as frequently as the chairman may deem necessary. I take it that this would depend on what progress is made with the work. If necessary, this will be frequently. Before the stage is reached at which there will be a great deal of work, matters will probably proceed at a more leisurely pace. This, however, is a matter which may leave in the hands of the chairman and the director.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked whether the National Education Council should, in view of the Advisory Council which we are now establishing, still have an advisory function in respect of the universities. That was a good question. However, the hon. member will recall that the National Education Council advises the Minister on tertiary education only at his request, and there is a reason for this. Problems were experienced with the old council. If the Education Council makes certain recommendations on education up to Std. X level, it is necessary to be able to establish whether those recommendations are going to conform to the requirements of tertiary education, and then it is necessary for the Minister to have the power to request the council also to advise him on how its recommendations will, for example, conform to the requirements of the colleges for advanced technical education or the universities. For that reason it is not a duplication of functions. Actually it is only a function with a view to particular circumstances.

The other points I shall prefer to deal with during the Committee Stage, and I therefore content myself with this explanation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name—

I think perhaps the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Algoa misunderstood me. Nowhere am I trying, through this amendment, to create the impression that I doubt their impartiality and independence. If my motion is accepted, greater status is in reality being granted to the persons appointed by the hon. the Minister to the council. The hon. the Minister said he has to appoint them. In my amendment I am not rejecting any of those other eight or nine persons whom he already has the power to appoint. Nor is the object of this amendment that they should have their own funds. I do not expect that. The amendment does not alter the fact that a person is an official in the service of the State. Nor does it alter the fact that the laws of the Public Service shall be applicable to him. We are simply saying that when the hon. the Minister makes such an appointment, he should do so on the recommendation of the members whom he has already appointed. I am convinced that the persons who served on the commission probably went into this matter very thoroughly. It was their considered opinion that this is the procedure which ought to be adopted. The hon. the Minister will appoint or nominate the members of the advisory committee, and also those who are nominated by the Committee of University Principals. After all, the liaison between the director and the rest of the council will perhaps be far closer than the liaison between him and the Minister is going to be for example. As a result it was the considered opinion of the commission of inquiry that they should have the right to make a recommendation, and that such a recommendation should then be accepted by the Minister. The Minister makes the appointment, and the rest is done in terms of the Public Service Act.

Mr. Chairman, we discussed a similar amendment fully in the Other Place. I explained there why I am not able to accept this amendment. I should not like to take up the time of this House unnecessarily, but I do nevertheless want to explain that all the members of the envisaged council are appointed by the Minister. If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, it would entail that I would first have to appoint all the other members, and then, in conjunction with them, look for and appoint the director. In my opinion it is in the first place wrong in principle, since all the members are appointed by the Minister, that certain of them should deliberate on the appointments of a co-member. But apart from that I think that this would also waste time. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall obviously, in my search for a suitable person, consult the members of the present University Advisory Committee who will to a very large extent of course—and this is in fact my reply to the hon. member for Sandton as well—come into consideration for appointment to the new Universities Advisory Council. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. I know that the hon. member moved it here with good intentions, but I think that he will, after my explanation, agree with me that it is not imperative in the set-up which we have here before us.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

The hon. the Minister has indicated to this House his reasons for this proposed University Advisory Council. The council is to have complete authority in matters relating to university education. It is to be a high-powered body of individuals who are unique, highly qualified people with specialized knowledge of tertiary education. But, Sir, against this ideal vision, you have the ironical situation that the Minister can discharge any member of the council. The Bill reads—

It does seem to me to be a bit contradictory that having appointed a person because of his professional competence, the Minister should have the right to discharge him summarily. With respect, Sir, I do not think anyone of quality can be expected to place his professional reputation in jeopardy in terms of this arbitrary provision. Even an apprentice has greater security through his contract than these members of the proposed University Advisory Council will have. We expect the Minister to say, of course, that he does not intend to act like a dictator, and we believe that that would be the correct attitude, but why then should he give himself these powers in this Bill? We feel that these members should have the right to express themselves, that they should be entitled to be heard, that the Minister should consult with the gentleman’s peers on the council, and that this protection should be written into the Act. We suspect that should candidates get the notion that they can be picked up and dropped at will like pawns on a chessboard, they are not going to be anxious to offer their services and I do not think this ideal is going to be realized as we would like it to be realized and therefore move the amendment as printed in my name—

Mr. Chairman, we also considered this amendment in the Other Place. I stated there, and I want to repeat it here, that on the face of it the amendment moved here by the hon. member seems to be an entirely acceptable one. However the law adviser brought it to my attention that it was previously the practice in legal circles to determine that a person who serves on or is appointed to a council to perform some function or other, vacates his office if one or more of a few things happen, as for example when he is an unrehabilitated insolvent, or when he becomes mentally deranged, or when he has been absent from a specific number of meetings, or is unable to do his work properly any more. Under such circumstances he may be discharged. According to the law adviser it is now the practice in legal circles that the function of discharging a person, or rather of relieving him of his function, should be vested in the person who appointed him. Half an hour ago, when we were considering another Bill here, the hon. the Minister of Finance explained the same point in respect of the Controller and Auditor-General, and said that the function of terminating a person’s service should be vested in the person who appointed him. This is the explanation of the wording as we have it here in front of us, and for that reason I adhere to it.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister just reassure me on this specific point? In the National Education Act, in which we are dealing with the National Education Council, the words that the Minister may dismiss a person “if in his opinion there is sufficient reason” appear. Here it is simply stated summarily that his appointment may be withdrawn by the Minister. All we are trying to achieve here is to have it inserted here that the Minister should be in a position to prove that there was a reason for terminating the person’s services. In what other way is one able to prove mala fides if the Minister may withdraw the appointment without furnishing any reasons? That is specifically that we are trying to do here, particularly since the Minister adopted the standpoint that the persons who are going to serve on this body, will be respected persons, and that a person does not believe that one would wish to place a person of that type in such an embarrasing situation. Could the Minister give me the assurance that according to his puristic information it does not differ from the provisions of the National Education Act, where esteemed persons are also appointed, but in which other words are used or the withdrawal of the appointment, where this is directly stated, and the question of reasons “for good cause shown” is introduced.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right when he says that the wording differs. I can tell him that if he looks up the National Monuments Act, as well as the South African War Graves Act, he will also find that the wording there is different to the wording here. For that reason I asked what the difference means, and whether there is any difference, and I was given the assurance that this is the streamlined way of stating the matter. I can tell you that it goes without saying that a Minister, if he has to terminate a person’s appointment, has to have a reason for doing so. Parliament is also able, just as it is able to criticize the appointment of a person to any of these councils across the floor of this House, to request the reasons, and to differ with the Minister on the reason why the appointment of such a person was terminated. I can inform the hon. members that there is no intention of acquiring a stick with which to beat a person upon whose assistance we are dependent.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the original Act was passed in 1967 there have been considerable changes in the field of planning and the environment. The Department of Planning has emerged more and more prominently as the co-ordinating, guiding and even creative Government organ geared to laying down land utilization patterns through sound forward planning and in that way avoiding as far as possible future problematic situations. In addition there has been increasing insistence, in and outside Parliament, that environmental matters should be properly managed. Consequently we have, since 1973, had a Department of Planning and the Environment. These developments are now being taken a step further by means of this Bill.

To adjust the Act to the name and functions of the Department in regard to the conservation of the environment, it is proposed that its name be changed to “the Environment Planning Act”.

Four new principles are being introduced into the Act—

1. (1) the power to reserve land for specific purposes;
2. (2) a prohibition on the utilization of land without a permit for the purpose of brickworks, potteries, stone crushing, stone quarries, sand pits, clay pits, gravel quarries, or soil quarries when that land has not been reserved for that purpose;
3. (3) the power to constitute guide plan committees, and compile and pass guide plans; and
4. (4) the power to appoint officers to investigate contraventions in terms of the act.

The first principle is contained in clause 4, the second and third in clause 6 and the fourth in clause 10. I shall confine myself mainly to these.

While the existing section 4 of the Principal Act only makes provision for the utilization of resources, the proposed amendment as contained in clause 4 also envisages the reservation of land for a whole series of other uses.

If the list of uses specified in sub-clause (1) of clause 4 is examined more closely it appears that the uses relate in the first place to the creation of infrastructure services by the various Government Departments or semi-State bodies. All these Departments and bodies already have powers to acquire or expropriate land for their various purposes. In practice, however, it may occur that they do not have the funds to purchase the land immediately, or that they sometimes have to purchase or expropriate a long time before they are able to use it for this specific purpose with the result that the land is then withdrawn from production. If they do not do this it is, on the other hand, possible that changes could occur in the utilization of that land which could impede its subsequent purchase.

The envisaged amendments will empower the Minister, at the request of the body concerned, to identify and reserve the land for this specific use at as early a stage as the planning stage. Existing use, and the development of existing use, will not be affected by such a reservation. The owner will be able to continue undisturbed with his present utilization of the land until a stage is reached When it is purchased by that body or expropriated and the owner fully compensated. In addition, the body concerned can of course purchase at any stage after reservation should circumstances, in its opinion, cause this to be desirable and necessary. The second category of uses relates to the conservation of the environment. Hon. members will probably agree with me that it is impossible to plan meaningfully if land cannot be reserved for uses of this kind. What we have in mind here, in particular, are our unique or rare mountain ranges, ridges, lagoons, estuaries, island systems in rivers, certain ecological areas in our mountains, along our coasts and elsewhere, and so on.

The third group of uses relates to the brickmakers, stonecrushers and sand and soil quarries. It is an acknowledged fact that we urgently need materials of this kind for development. Unfortunately they are very heavy and cannot be conveyed economically over long distances. On the other hand, it must be possible to ensure that these activities occur at places where they do not conflict with township development or other uses, or that township development or other uses do not occur on land on which these materials may be economically exploited. It is therefore deemed essential to request the power to reserve land which is suitable for the exploitation of these materials for these purposes.

It is equally essential to be able to exercise effective control over these activities on land which has not been reserved for such purposes. Whereas subsection (1) of clause 4 will therefore empower the reservation of land for the uses concerned, the proposed new section 6B places a prohibition on the practising of activities of this kind without a permit on land which has not been reserved for that purpose. In the metropolitan areas in particular the Department has made considerable progress with the identification of land which is suitable for the exploitation of these materials, and in these areas it will, relatively speaking, be possible for reservation to be done fairly quickly. In the meantime, it will be possible to allow exploitation thereof by means of permits. At the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment relating to the construction of railway lines and roads.

However, the envisaged section 6B which has been mentioned goes one step further and envisages placing the processing of minerals under permit control as well. These processing activities are excluded from the definition of a “factory” and cannot therefore be controlled under section 3 of the Principal Act. It is possible that a processing undertaking could be established at a place where it would conflict with the existing development or could give rise to undesirable development in the vicinity.

Because it is possible that the processing of minerals could make a very major contribution to the development of a specific area, control over the place where these activities may be practised is considered imperative in the interest of the country. The proposed section 6B(2) makes provision for consultation with the Minister of Mines where the processing of minerals is at issue.

To enable the Minister to ensure that the natural surroundings are not spoiled to too great an extent and that the environment is kept neat, clause 4(2) empowers the prescribing of conditions when land is reserved for specific uses. Subsection (5) of clause 4 provides that subsections (1), (2) and (3) of that clause will not be applicable in the area of an approved guide plan. The guide plan will then do the reservation and action in terms of these subsections will no longer be necessary.

The third principle is embodied in clause 6 which provides inter alia for the insertion of a new section 6A in the principal act. In terms of this clause, guide plan committees are constituted with the object of compiling guide plans and submitting them to the Minister for approval. Since 1971, quite a number of guide plan committees have already been appointed and guide plans for a number of areas have been completed and released. In certain respects these plans are vague and have no legal status. At the instigation of the provinces and other bodies it has been decided that the time has now arrived for provision to be made for the compiling of statutory guide plans which will be binding on Government bodies and the general public. The intention is not to take over the planning functions of the provinces or local authorities but with their help and support to draw up guide plans which could then serve as guide lines for them in the performance in the task of urban and town planning. As hon. members know, virtually all land situated outside the jurisdiction of local authorities, is deemed to be agricultural land for the application of the Sub-division of Agricultural land Act, 1970. This means that if a local authority wishes to incorporate any of this land in its jurisdiction or any person wishes to sub-divide the land for any purpose whatsoever, it is first necessary to obtain the permission of the Minister of Agriculture. Because agricultural land as defined in the said Act will, of necessity, be included in every area for which a guide plan has to be drawn up subclause (1) of clause 6 provides that such an area may only be defined after consultation of the Minister of Agriculture and the Administrator of the province. This will ensure that good agricultural land is not included unnecessarily in the area.

Subsection (2) deals with the constituting of the guide plan committee and requires the Minister to include representatives of the relevant Government Departments, provinces and local authorities on the committee. The representative of the Department of Planning and the Environment will of necessity be the chairman of the committee in every case.

Subsection (3) provides for members of the public and local authorities with an interest in the guide plan to submit proposals to the guide plan committee.

Because land which is involved in such an investigation will for the most part be land destined for purposes other than agricultural purposes, subsection (4) provides that the powers of the Minister of Agriculture in terms of the Sub-division of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, within the defined area, are transferred to the Minister of Planning and the Environment until a guide plan is approved. After that, the powers in respect of land indicated in the approved guide plan for agricultural purposes reverts to the Minister of Agriculture and the remainder of the land covered by the plan is excluded from the provisions of the said act.

Subsections (5) and (6) make provisions for the compiling of a draft guide plan and the gathering of representations from the general public.

Subsection (7) requires the Administrator concerned to be afforded a final opportunity to comment on the draft guide plan and the representations received in regard to such plan.

Subsection (8) then empowers the Minister, after consideration of the draft guide plan together with, all the representations which were received to approve a final guide plan, and subclause (9) requires him to make public the fact that this has been done and to make the approved guide plan available for inspection and information.

†Mr. Speaker, subsection (10) stipulates what the consequences of an approved guide plan are, namely—

1. (a) all agricultural land in the guide plan area, except land specifically reserved for agricultural purposes, is excluded from the Sub-division of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, as has already been explained;
2. (b) a prohibition is placed on the amendment of any town planning scheme in which provision is made for the zoning of land for a purpose which is inconsistent with the guide plan. It is thereby intended to make it compulsory for the provinces and local authorities to comply with the provisions of the guide plan;
3. (c) at the same time a total prohibition is placed on the use of land, other than in compliance with a town planning scheme in force in that area or for a purpose for which it was used on the date of the coming into operation of the approved guide plan. The guide plan will naturally cover a wider area than the existing city development. Although it will provide what usages may be pursued and where, the guide plan itself will not confer a right on anybody to immediately use the land for the purpose indicated. Development of the various usages will have to be sanctioned by the provinces and local authorities through their town planning schemes; and
4. (d) it prohibits the granting of permission under any law for the use of land in the guide plan area for a purpose inconsistent with the guide plan.

Subsection (11) lays down that a guide plan may only be amended by the Minister in the same manner as is provided in the Act for the formulation and approval thereof.

The fourth new principle in the Bill is contained in clause 10. It authorizes the Secretary for the Department of Planning and the Environment to give written instructions to an official of his department to investigate any alleged contravention of the Act, with a view to instituting a prosecution. The official so instructed will thus be empowered to enter premises by day, question people, inspect and make copies of books and documents, and if necessary seize them.

When the principal Act was passed in 1967 it was not deemed necessary to provide for an inspectorate. At that time the Department of Labour consented to instruct their factory inspectors to see that section 3 of the Act was complied with and, in cases of contravention thereof, to report the same to the Department of Planning and the Environment. According to reports from these inspectors section 3 is being contravened by certain industrialists, mainly in the PWV area. However, owing to technical problems concerning the seizure of the wage registers, and the production of certain evidence, no cases have as yet been brought before court. The arrangement agreed upon in 1967 has thus not worked well in practice and the Department of Labour has now requested my department to make provision for inspections under Act 88 of 1967. It is not the intention) to create an inspectorate. It is proposed to make use of the officials of the department who are entrusted with the administration of the principal Act and to investigate those cases where the department has good reason to believe that contravention of the Act is taking place.

My belief, and that of the Government, is that the promotion of decentralization is in the highest interests of our country. It not only strives to promote the balanced development of our country in its various regions and homelands, thereby taking work to the people instead of all the people having to come to the work, but also provides for the better utilization of our natural resources. Decentralization of industry must in the first instance be promoted by positive measures and incentives in the form of financial and other concessions, making it financially worthwhile for industrialists to consider decentralization as well as giving them the assurance that they will then not be in an unfavourable competitive position vis-à-vis their competitors in the metropolitan areas. A review of the concessions therefore takes place from time to time. An announcement in this regard has very recently been made by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. At the same time I wish to state that the further concentration in the controlled areas of factories falling outside the White Paper labour ratio and which can decentralize, will not be allowed. To achieve this, in addition to the financial incentives to which I have already referred, section 3 of the Act will be applied and contraventions thereof prosecuted. Apart from these considerations, industrialists who have decentralized as well as others in the metropolitan areas who conform to the law, strongly insist that steps be taken against their competitors in the metropolitan areas who employ Bantu unlawfully. This then as far as the four new principles of the Bill are concerned.

Perhaps I can add a few words on some other clauses of the Bill. Clause 2 withdraws the provisions of section 2(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act within a guide plan area. These sections stipulate that no industrial land may be subdivided and that no industrial township may be established without the Minister’s prior approval. After the approval of the guide plan the local authorities and the provinces may forthwith exercise the necessary control in accordance with the guide plan. Control over the zoning of land for industrial purposes as provided in section 2(1)(a) of the principal Act is, however, retained.

Clause 3 is a correction. The Act presently provides for the withdrawal of a permit issued in terms of section 8 of the principal Act if the conditions upon which it is issued are not complied with. Similar provision is, however, not made for the withdrawal of a written consent in terms of section 3 of the principal Act if the conditions attached thereto are not complied with.

Clause 5 is a consequential amendment to avoid double control. The new section 6B will exercise control over the use of land for the purpose of a brickfield, pottery and quarry and control in terms of section 6 will no longer be necessary.

Clause 7 is a correction to provide that land which is used for a specific purpose can be exempted from the provisions of section 6(1) of the principal Act by merely mentioning the use without defining the land.

Clause 8 is also a consequential amendment to provide for the issue of permits to use land for the purposes prohibited by the new section 6B. Clause 9 provides for an amendment to the name of the Department of Planning and the Environment and the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. Furthermore, the name of the Minister of Health is added to the list of Ministers who may nominate representatives on the Committee of Seven. A representative of the Department of Health has already served for a considerable period in an advisory capacity on the Committee of Seven, which has been constituted in terms of section 9 of the principal Act. The Department of Health plays a very important role in the prevention and combating of pollution and it is considered advisable in all respects that it be granted full status on the Committee of Seven.

Clause 13 is intended to bring the long title of the principal Act into line with the principles which are contained in this Bill and clause 14 amends the name of the principal Act.

This, Mr. Speaker, is more or less what this Bill is about. I think that it is an important measure. On the whole it has a positive approach and is a step in the right direction. I have every hope that, if passed by Parliament, it will prove to be an instrument which can be used to make a substantial contribution to the orderly development of South Africa and the preservation of the environment.

Mr. Speaker, merely by way of introduction I want to say that this measure was in the first instance introduced in the Other Place and that consequently we had a good idea of what was at issue. In addition I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that he made his Second Reading speech available to us and for having told his officials to inform us in regard to the measure, something which does of course facilitate discussion and, in addition, make it more valuable. We are sympathetic towards the hon. the Minister, because we know that he has been waiting to submit this measure to the House for the past two months. It is not his fault that it is only being submitted at this late stage. While I say this, and without blaming him for it, I do think that it is a great pity that such a contentious measure should be submitted to the hon. House at this very late stage. A great many hon. members have already gone, and others are in a hurry to go. The hon. member for Smithfield is already prepared to negotiate with me in regard to this matter. It is a pity that it should be submitted to the House at such a late stage, when everyone is tired and no-one really wants to give attention to such a measure. The Government can of course push it through with their numerical superiority, but the hon. the Minister indicated what an important measure it is and in my opinion this is something to which one would have wanted to give mature consideration, something which is impossible under the circumstances. I am by no means garrulous, but to keep the democratic process operating, it is essential that we state our standpoint in regard to this measure. If anyone is to blame for the fact that the discussion of this measure is taking so long, it is not this side of the House, but rather those persons who are responsible for the regulation of our work here.

The hon. the Minister indicated that there were in fact three considerations which we should bear in mind in considering this measure. He said that since 1967, major changes have occurred in South Africa. Of course, we are not denying this. He said, too, that the Department of Planning had shown itself to foe as a creative organ of State and we shall not quarrel about that, either. Furthermore, he stated that the name of the department had been changed and that it was now known as the Department of Planning and the Environment. We do not wish to argue about that either. However, I think that these three are important points of departure, because it is these very three points of departure which determine how we are going to react to this specific legislation.

We are dealing here with a revision and an adjustment of the 1967 Act. For the sake of hon. members who have perhaps forgotten, I just want to say that that Act was based on the old utilization and application of physical resources legislation, legislation which was placed on the Statute Book in the old days by this side of the House. We were of course opposed to certain provisions contained in the Act which was submitted here ten years ago and the adjustments now being made by the hon. the Minister only confirm that we acted with absolute correctness ten years ago.

This legislation is the kind of which certain parts are good and others bad. Our problem is to determine to what extent the parts which are bad, eclipse those that are good. The hon. the Minister indicated that four basic principles were at issue here, and perhaps we should refer briefly to each of them. I shall indicate our standpoint in regard to each of them. The first is as contained in clause 4. This empowers the department to reserve land for specific purposes. From time to time expansion is essential in South Africa. Government departments must be authorized to reserve, identify and set aside for that specific purpose, certain land areas for the establishment of infrastructure services. This means that the land may be used for normal purposes in the meantime and that it need not lie fallow. When, subsequently, it becomes necessary to do so, it can be purchased for the purposes I have stated. We are of the opinion that this would assist in eliminating speculation, that it would probably counteract inflation and that it would also be of assistance in preventing prices from rising too steeply. In our opinion the motivation for such a measure is well-founded, and in principle, therefore, we accept it without demur.

The second principle at issue here is the one in respect of section 6 of the Principal Act. This chiefly concerns control of excavations and the processing of building material and certain activities associated with conservation of the environment. In the first instance it concerns stone-crushing, brick-making, etc., and the hon. the Minister is quite correct in saying that there are only certain parts which are suitable for activities of this kind and that land must be set aside for this purpose. Activities of this kind can often mar an environment. Often, when one approaches a large city, one comes across these quarries and brickworks. We accept that there must be control of these things. It is also the aim to conserve certain areas—the hon. the Minister referred to lagoons, estuaries, etc.—and we are of the opinion that this is in the national interest and we shall therefore support it.

The third principle concerns section 6A of the principal Act. Here we are dealing with the power to establish guide plan committees, which can compile guide plans. Our information is that this is already taking place on a large scale. At the moment, many plans are being compiled, but apparently not on a legal basis. The aim is to provide statutory power so that these plans will be binding on both the State and the public. I am pleased that provision is being made for the State here, because the State is becoming one of the biggest entrepreneurs in South Africa. In fact, seen against the background of our gross national product, the State is probably responsible for almost a quarter of the economic activities in this Country. One calls to mind, of course, undertakings such as the Railways, Which is one of the biggest users of land and also one of the biggest causes of pollution, Consequently it is quite right that this measure also be made to apply to Government bodies such as the Railways. The basic motivation as we see it, is that land must be utilized in the best possible manner. Once again we regard this as essential. I could mention in passing the importance of the utilization of agricultural land. Reference has been made to this matter in this hon. House before. I have been told that only parts of our coastal strip, parts of Natal and parts of the Witwatersrand are really suitable for agriculture. It is also stated that a maximum of 4% of South Africa’s total land area provides almost 40% of our agricultural production. In principle, therefore, we agree entirely that land must be utilized to the optimum extent. However, there is also a third aspect involved here. These departments are not only going to lay down the guide-lines; as we see it, it is also going to determine the whole pattern of the activities of the provinces and local management. On a previous occasion we said that we advocated the greatest possible degree of decentralization, and this in fact applied in regard to all Government activities as well. The wider and more difficult the sphere of action becomes, the more essential decentralization of activities becomes. But we have not had the slightest assurance that the kind of planning which is being carried out at present in Natal and elsewhere, for example, is not simply being taken over willy-nilly by the central department and centralized. Certain of my colleagues will be wanting to discuss this matter in detail with the hon. the Minister. Unless, therefore, there is a satisfactory explanation for the problems we are experiencing at the moment, we shall be quite unable to support that specific clause.

I now come to the fourth principle involved in this legislation, and it is the one embodied in clause 10. The department, and the secretary of the department in particular, are empowered to appoint officials, investigate contraventions and institute legal proceedings. It is our view that this immediately makes the Secretary of the department a “super snooper”. What he really becomes, in fact, is a kind of industrial commissar, the kind one has in Russia. He becomes a kind of industrial Boss. He is now no longer involved in planning only. He is now someone who can send people into various organizations. The clause in question states what he can do. For example: He can carry out inspections; he can enter premises; he can question people and he can seize books. Surely this is something one finds in the totalitarian states, not under a capitalist system like ours.

The hon. the Minister states that it is not the intention to establish an inspectorate. He states that it is merely the intention to establish an inspection service. However, I do not know the difference. Possibly the one is permanent whereas the other is temporary. To my mind, this is merely a question of degree. What these officials are now supposed to do is investigate whether any contraventions are taking place. Section 2 of the principal Act, as hon. members will remember, is one dealing with the zoning and subdivision of land for industrial purposes. I should think there are a number of other Government departments involved in this matter. For example there are municipal regulations and a number of other matters. It is difficult to imagine the Department of Planning wanting to concern itself with this. In the second place it is stated that inquiries can be made concerning the implementation of section 3 of the principal Act. Section 3 deals with the establishment and extension of factories. There is of course subsection (4) which is really the important provision here, because it states, “For the purpose of subsection (1) and extension of a factory means any increase in the number of Bantu employees employed in such factory.” Judging from what the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, it is really section 3 that he is concerned about, and which this legislation is really about. Finally, this legislation also deals with section 8 of the Principal Act and this relates to the issuing of permits, the subdivision of land, and so on. The hon. the Minister states that it is not the idea to start a witch-hunt. But as we see it, he is establishing a measure here which lends itself directly to degeneration. He is now using the officials of the Department of Planning, who are highly qualified people of whom there is an acute shortage, and it amazes me that the hon. the Minister is going to use such highly qualified people for a kind of task which really amounts to a kind of police campaign. They have to investigate matters and they have to prosecute people and I should think that this would lead to alienation, because if one meets industrialists as a senior official of the Department of Planning, then, after all, one has a specific function, but if one has to take them to court the next day because they have one additional Bantu in their employ, then I think that one is alienating them entirely from the basic task they have to perform. This, then, is one of our major objections to this. I should have thought that the hon. the Minister should have persuaded his colleagues, who should take far more interest in matters of this kind to carry out these functions, if he regards them as essential. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Labour would like to have such powers, and if it is a question of influx control, there is the Department of Bantu Affairs who can deal with it. As we see the matter, what we have here is a violation of the basic role of the Department of Planning. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister admitted, when he originally submitted this measure, that he had never thought that anything of the kind would be necessary. But he now finds that it is in fact necessary, and in our opinion this is an indication that this measure is an unsuccessful one.

What has happened in this particular sphere? The statistics are interesting. Since section 3, to which reference is made, was introduced, there have been almost 16 000 applications for an increase in the number of Bantu employees. Of these, the hon. the Minister tells us, more than 14 000 have been acceded to. As far as the number of Bantu are concerned, it is apparently allowed that 210 000 have been employed in this type of work and about 82 000 have been turned down. This means, therefore, that according to these statistics, over a period of almost 10 years this legislation has only succeeded in keeping back 82 000 Bantu who would otherwise have been employed in the Bantu areas. We know that this is of course only the tip of the iceberg because that is why this Bill is being submitted to us, since for every one Bantu whom they keep back, there are probably five or six others who come in in any event and about whom the hon. the Minister is in fact powerless to do anything.

The hon. the Minister states that this measure is vital to the implementation of the Government’s decentralization plan. I think you must allow me to refer just for two minutes to the principle of decentralization, a principle which, according to the Minister, forms the background motivation for this legislation. We have never been opposed to decentralization as such. We know that there are very sound social reasons making it necessary to decentralize and we are aware of the research carried out which indicates that the social expenditure increases as a community expands. We are aware, too, of very sound economic reasons for decentralization. There has to be distribution of economic activities and if the hon. the Minister should come to us and state that he wants to develop Oudtshoorn or Kimberley as economic growth points, we would not oppose it. We are also aware that there are sound political reasons for decentralizations, but in this case one would have expected the Government to establish its growth points within the Bantu homelands and not outside them, because the border area development the Government is undertaking and which forms the background for this legislation is an economic monstrosity. They are trying to make states independent and to establish factories around their borders like a string of pearls or beads. We are also aware that there are sound strategic reasons for decentralization. We are aware that Russia, for example, is strategically vulnerable because most of its industrial activities are combined in six large central areas. America, on the other hand, is far less vulnerable because they have a 100 such areas in which their economic activities are concentrated. Sir, we have never been opposed to decentralization and if the Minister were to have proposed that there should be decentralization of economic activities to within the homelands, we should have given him our full support. But we do not support this kind of economic half-way station we have here. After all, we must remember that when we talk about decentralizations, the normal economic tendency is precisely the opposite, viz. to centralize, because that is where one has an accumulation of people, that is where one has an accumulation of purchasing power. Why, then, must we adopt artificial measures in order to decentralize if centralization is a normal economic phenomenon? The normal economic phenomenon is to centralize and that is precisely what we are dealing with here. That is why this legislation is before us, viz. to ensure artificially that there will be a greater degree of decentralization. Our objection is that the decentralization the Government is effecting here is being effected chiefly for ideological reasons. If the Government tells us that it wants to decentralize because there is too little electricity in the Witwatersrand area, then that is acceptable, or if the Government tells us that it wants to decentralize because the section here states that there is too little water and that we should therefore make better use of our water and consequently we have to decentralize, then we would accept that. What does this specific section state? It states that we should decentralize because there is an accumulation of people. Now, people are one of the most mobile elements in the economy. People move easily. [Interjection.] Fifteen or 20 years ago, when the Free State gold fields started, apart from meercats and antheaps there was absolutely nothing, but within a year there were thousands upon thousands of people. People are mobile; they can move. But this is not something which applies merely to people; this legislation only applies to Black people. I could establish an economic enterprise on the Witwaterrand with 50 000 White workers if I had the money and the ability, but if I wanted to employ one additional Black worker, then I should clash with this legislation. Sir, this is absolute discrimination, and surely the Government is telling everyone that there is no discrimination in South Africa. Our ambassador and many others state that there is no discrimination, but this very measure we are dealing with is a discriminatory one. How, then, can we tell the outside world that we in South Africa do not discriminate, and then come along with a measure such as this? We have here a strange political mutation of the Government’s apartheid policy. On the one hand it states that there is no discrimination, and on the other it comes along with a measure of this kind.

We are also opposed to this legislation because it is an indication of how bureaucracy is building up. The entrepreneur in South Africa knows that he can no longer build a factory where he wants to, that he cannot employ whom he wants to. Everything is controlled by the State, and this is simply a further development of this phenomenon, because the Government can send people to seize one’s documents, can institute proceedings against one and bring one before a court. We are amazed that at this very juncture, when there is such a shortage of suitable officials, the hon. the Minister wants to use his department for this specific purpose. It clashes with what we call the free entrepreneuring spirit and procedures in our community. We cannot associate anything of this kind with the normal capitalist system. We believe that there should be planning. We have never been opposed to any form of planning, but here we are going further than that. The department is not only concerned with planning now; the department is now like the Police, too. They have to check what people are doing and then prosecute them. We consider that this interferes with the normal functioning of this department. Now the hon. the Minister will tell us that we accept certain of the principles, whereas we are opposed to others and that consequently we have to accept the legislation. The choice we have is that what we have here are certain parts which are good, whereas there are others which are bad. The strength of a chain has always been that of the weakest link, and we shall have to abide by that. It is just like a case of apples. If a few of the apples in the case are bad, then the whole case of apples will soon go bad. Because there are so many principles in the Bill which are bad and entirely unacceptable to us, we are opposed to it and we shall vote against it in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow astonished us this afternoon, the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act was passed in 1967, viz. eight years ago, but he sticks to 10 years. To the hon. member, eight years mean 10 years, and that was the basis of his entire argument this afternoon. He will not get straight to the point, but this is so wide that it is always convenient for him to say something about it. When the Principal Act was adopted in 1967, the hon. member for Hillbrow made a great fuss about it and said that by means of this legislation we were destroying the economy of South Africa, and with it the future of South Africa.

The Prime Minister’s Advisory Council also says so.

In 1967 the hon. member’s words were that by means of that measure we would be strangling the South African economy. Subsequently we pointed out to the hon. member time and again that instead of the economy being strangled—we refer in particular to section 3 of the Principal Act—we in South Africa were experiencing growth on a scale unprecedented anywhere else. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred on occasion to Japan with its growth rate of 12% for that year and Germany with its growth rate of 8% or 9% for that year. Then he referred to South Africa and said that in that year it had a growth rate of only 2,3%. Last year South Africa’s growth was the highest in the Western world. When we pointed that out to the hon. member for Hillbrow, he conceded the point, but added that we had never applied the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. Just imagine! Because he was wrong in 1967, the hon. member came along and said that we had not implemented the Act. I do not want to say that I went to the hon. the Minister then, because I really did not do so, but I think the hon. the Minister was wise enough to know that if the hon. member for Hillbrow said that we were not applying it, he should take a look at it. I think that that was one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister said that we should really take a look at the legislation. After all, hon. members can understand that many bodies decentralized, whereas others balked. Those who decentralized said that there were other bodies whose numerical proportions were such that they, too, should have decentralized and they then reproached us with not seeing to them. Then the Minister came up with this legislation and stated that we were not going to appoint an inspectorate or policemen as the hon. member wants to maintain. He said that senior officials of his department would be appointed. I think these officials will be administrative officers, in other words they will occupy posts equal to the rank of captain in the Police. Those people will now hold discussions with industrialists when they are of the opinion that there is a screw loose. They will hold discussions in such a way as to point out to those bodies that in those specific cases the position was not everything that could be desired and that they were therefore of the opinion that the position should be rectified. Eventually, should it be necessary, legal proceedings would be instituted. The hon. member now wants to tell the world, in and out of season—I find it strange that he should have even dragged Russia in this afternoon; he will know why he did so; I do not…

We must send the captain to him.

That I do not know. The fact is simply that industrialists will be negotiated with in a responsible way if it is suspected that unlawful acts are being perpetrated. Consequently I really cannot see why the hon. member for Hillbrow is becoming so upset about this matter.

In my opinion the hon. member’s first remark was also inappropriate. He wanted to create the impression here that this legislation only came to the House of Assembly at this late hour as a kind of Cinderella measure. That is not true. To the Government this is an exceptionally important measure. This measure was initiated in the Other Place. They dealt with this legislation there. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this session. It is because it was dealt with in the Other Place that we have only been able to discuss it at this late hour. Now the Other Place can wait for us, instead of our always having to wait for them. This is the one important reason why this measure has to be dealt with now at this late hour. We can tell the hon. member that this is not a Cinderella measure, but that we shall deal with it fully from this side of the House. The hon. member stated that I had negotiated with him. All he told me was that he had eight members who were going to speak. I then told him, “I have four and that is enough for you.” Our four against their eight will be about sufficient.

You made me an offer.

That is the position. We shall in fact discuss this Bill. However, it was initiated in the Other Place and, as chairman of the planning group, I of course went to listen there for a time. When the Leader of the Opposition in the Other Place rose and started to talk, I said, “No, this thing is meeting with approval.” It was a Free Stater, but I could see it because he said that he should be numbered among those who wanted to establish more pleasant living conditions. He said that the Department of Planning and the Environment should consequently have more powers and that as a result he was pleased that the hon. the Minister has come to that place to request more powers. He said that he was very pleased—this concerned all the important principles in the Bill—that guide plans could now be compiled for regions and that it was a pleasure for him to have a part in it. At the time I accepted that as far as this legislation was concerned, we should have the full support of the official Opposition and would complete the legislation with ease. But subsequently, just like the hon. member for Hillbrow, he made an about-face with regard to section 3 of the Principal Act and clause 10 of this Bill.

Why are these people forever obstructing our path where anything which is to the benefit of the meaningful development of South Africa is concerned? I believe that in the normal course they would have given us the support we require but that this year, the problem occurred that the members of the Progressive Party sitting next to me here competing with them. Now the official Opposition feels that they have to do everything to score political points off the hon. members to my right here.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member sitting next to me here is talking to me once again. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you called on me but I did not hear you because we were involved in an exchange of words here, and now he is troubling me again.

Order! I must say that I find it regrettable that fellow Free Staters should argue with each other so.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Just as occurred in the Other Place, this hon. member wants to cast suspicion upon this Bill. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow who he thinks will still take notice of them. In 1967 they told the world that if we were to carry on with the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, we should kill the economy.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member admit that the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council is opposed to this Bill?

I want to tell the hon. member that the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council advises the Prime Minister. Much of that advice will not be accepted by the Prime Minister. Does the hon. member think that the Prime Minister will accept everything that is put before him, whoever it comes from? I just want to tell the hon. member that the most useful talent one person can have is to be able to pick the brains of other people. This means that you will draw people around you and people will give you lectures, and tell you things, as we hear every day in this House. If you are a man with the necessary ability—and I almost want to say the grace—then you take from those people what is valuable. You use it and take it with you, and the rest you reject. I think that that is the reply to that point.

Now the hon. member comes along and makes another statement. The other statement he makes in order to cast suspicion on this measure is that it seems that the department and the Minister want to take away the powers of the provinces and local authorities. I think it is only right and fair that I should say that this is not stated anywhere in this measure. The fact of the matter is that this department does not wish to become a super-department of any kind. This department, together with other Government departments, the provinces and local authorities wants to co-operate in order to plan meaningfully for the present and the future. I think that we should take cognizance of the fact that there is no question here of this department wanting to dominate everything, but that this department wants to co-operate with all bodies in order to make progress. The hon. member states that we should have persuaded the Minister not to come forward with this measure. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that no one is more aware than members of this side of the House of the problems associated with decentralization. Decentralization will never be a normal process. Decentralization can only take place if there are incentive measures. By going about it in such a way one makes it possible for industrialists to make a meaningful livelihood in decentralized areas. If the hon. member had wanted us on this side of the House to persuade the hon. the Minister and his department to decentralize in a normal way only, then I think the hon. member knows that what he said carries no weight. The hon. member links this one important statement to that. He refers to our border industrial areas as “goggas”. Surely the hon. member knows that that is not true. The hon. member wishes it was true, but in our border areas we have reached the stage of being able to show the world how we have succeeded in the way in which we have carried this out.

Not one homeland leader accepts that.

It was so successful that eventually it became necessary for the benefits normally offered to such areas to be withdrawn. The development was as spontaneous as if the border industrial areas had been normal areas.

Come and look at Brits.

The hon. member for Brits states, “Come and look at Brits. The hon. member for Hillbrow states that they would have supported us if we had allowed this development to take place within the homelands. It is a pleasure for me to be able to say in this House, and draw the hon. member’s attention to what we have already achieved and what we are doing at the moment in the homelands themselves. Through the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Bantu Investment Corporation, developments are taking place in the homelands which even the sharpest critics of this policy must admit that they had not expected. In other words, the hon. member for Hillbrow therefore did not want to accept our border industrial development. In years past he referred mockingly to the lack of local development in the homelands. And now, in 1975, we in South Africa have reached the stage of being able to take our people to the border industrial areas and to the homelands themselves, and do so with pride. I want to mention a few places where I myself have been, for example Dimbaza, which is still small, Butterworth which is large and Umtata which is also large, where we have development and where employment opportunities are being created on a large scale for these people. The hon. member for Pinelands does not like this, but I understand it. The people of the hon. member for Pinelands do not like it at all when we succeed in creating opportunities for the Black and Brown people.

You are probably referring to the hon. member for Sea Point.

Yes, the hon. member for Sea Point. After all, Pinelands is the other fellow who is no longer in Parliament. These hon. members do not like it when we succeed, merely because they see how happy we can make our Black people in South Africa, and how many employment opportunities we can create for them and how we create opportunities for them equal to those of every other group in South Africa. This Government will continue with this. Then the hon. member makes the other statement to which I referred. I cannot understand it. The hon. member for Hillbrow states that people are the most mobile factor. However, it is in regard to this very matter that we have had complaints from that side of the House when people have had to be moved.

When there is something to attract them, yes.

To move people is not so easy. If there is something to attract them, yes. This Government is engaged in establishing the attraction.

Where?

In the border areas. The easiest kind of attraction is that which has attracted the hon. member. From the metropolitan area of Fauresmith the hon. member breezed into Johannesburg. This is normal and not difficult. This Government is attracting people to these areas for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member, and, in addition, in order to allow meaningful development to take place in South Africa.

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that I have afforded members of the two major parties in this House the opportunity to conduct a fairly wide and general discussion. However, section 3 of the original Act is not being amended. It is merely the implication thereof, by means of an inspection service, which is at issue. Consequently I cannot allow a general discussion henceforth, and hon. members must confine themselves to the amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the objections raised by the hon. member for Smithfield, this nevertheless appears to me to be Cinderella legislation. Time and again we saw the legislation moving up on the Order Paper, and then being removed and placed at the bottom again. It almost seemed as if the Government was ashamed and was trying to hide the legislation. It would seem as if the Government hoped that the legislation would stand over until the next session and that it would not come into operation, because it appears to me that the Government was in fact afraid that the enforcement of the Act and the application of the policy as set out in the legislation would harm the country. The Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Amendment Bill, like so many other Acts of the Government, is a potpourri of good measures, weak measures and bad measures. The ingredients may spoil the whole dish, they may make it completely unpalatable and they may even harm the country. We on this side of the House believe that the legislation needs a little salt in order to give it all the power it needs to enable the hon. the Minister to carry out his responsibilities.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

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

I am quite prepared to do so.

Did the hon. member write out that speech before Mr. Speaker had given his ruling?

The hon. member may proceed.

I wrote out the speech in advance and I prepared myself before Mr. Speaker had given his ruling. I believe that the first new principle is a good one, and we can wholeheartedly support the powers to reserve land for specific purposes and uses. We should just like to have the assurance that all local authorities will be consulted and that close attention will be paid to their recommendations which we believe to be very important. This measure is long overdue and we have discussed it before in debates, asking that land be zoned in advance for future requirements and uses in order to provide for the future development of the country. Subsection (1) of clause 4 sets out the nature of the purposes for which the land may be reserved, (m) providing for other purposes as well. We should like to have an indication from the hon. the Minister of what other purposes he has in mind.

I am particularly grateful for the fact that the list includes natural areas and that land may be reserved for that purpose as well. I have often pleaded in this House that certain areas should be reserved as nature conservation areas. I hope that the hon. the Minister is able to give us the assurance that land under the control of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure will be carefully gone through for possible natural areas. We have made this request to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture before and he has given us the assurance that the areas under his control do not include any parts which can be zoned as nature conservation areas. In spite of this assurance, the Mapelane coastal dunes forest between Richards Bay and St. Lucia recently had tremendous repercussions again. We saw the Minister of Mines allowing certain mining companies to prospect there, while we knew that parts of this area falling under the Minister of Agriculture had been earmarked by the Natal Parks Board as one of the priority areas which they would like to proclaim a nature conservation area.

The Mapelane area is known for having some of the highest dunes in the world, some off which attain a height of up to 188 metres. There is also a wonderful coastal forest. I have flown over that area in the company of the previous member for South Coast and I have fallen under its spell. We have now seen this remarkable coastal area being threatened by prospecting, while the Minister of Planning and the Environment apparently lacked the powers to do anything about it. We hope that in terms of this clause he will be able to preserve such magnificent areas for posterity.

There is also an area such as the Magaliesberg area, where several organizations are endeavouring to have it proclaimed a nature conservation area, but with little success up to now. The area is being threatened by firms which exploit the ravines for sand with which to manufacture glass. In addition, roads are being built un to the tops of the mountains, with the result that the beauty of nature is really being destroyed there. Recently we had the example of the Langebaan lagoon, which is being threatened by tremendous development in that area. The beautiful Langebaan lagoon is well known for the wonderful opportunities it offers to vachters, but particularly to ornithologists for studying bird life, there. This lagoon was really in danger, arid recently the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment announced that that area too would now be considered a nature conservation area. We hope that the area will be preserved for posterity in terms of this measure. However, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether an area proclaimed a nature conservation area in terms of this legislation cannot still be proclaimed in future in order to be developed as an urban area or for township development or even for a harbour or something else. I should like to know how binding this kind of zoning of such an area will be in the future. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would reply to us in this respect.

However, we believe that this list is by no means complete and that quite a number of other purposes should be added to clause 4. That may be the hon. the Minister’s intention with the new section 4(l)(m). We believe it to be essential that it should be possible to proclaim areas as a result of the pollution which takes place there. In this way, for example, we think of noise pollution at airports.

There is the case of Jan Smuts Airport, where the residential area has expanded until it almost adjoins the runway, with the result that life in that residential area is often almost unbearable because of the noise made by the aircraft. Areas near airports should be reserved for industrial development. In this way, too, we know that in residential areas adjoining industrial areas, particularly where there are paper mills and sewerage works, the smell is sometimes absolutely unbearable. Provision should be made for green belts, etc. In the discussion on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, we spoke of protected and preserved landscapes. These could also have been included in this list.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether reservation of land for a particular purpose will compel the State to buy the land concerned at the current market value if the owner so desires. We have often seen in the past that areas have been zoned or allocated for dam development, with the result that the poor farmers were unable to make any improvements, knowing that they would receive no compensation for those improvements.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether, if a landowner makes any improvements after the notification that that land is to be reserved for a certain purpose, compensation will be paid for these when the department eventually takes over that land for the purpose for which it is being reserved. If this is not to be the case, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to provide for that land to be purchased by the department at once if an owner so desires. Otherwise it could have a very inhibiting effect on the development of such a young farmer during a critical period of his development. With the large purchases of land for the consolidation of the homelands, I do not believe that the State will be able to afford to buy all these lands as well at the same time. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister foresees in this connection.

The second new principle in the amending Bill is a prohibition on the use, without a permit, of land for stone quarries, sand-pits, clay-pits or soil quarries. Many township developments are being hampered today by big, unsightly open mines on their outskirts. We know that these stone quarries or sand-pits used to be situated far outside a town. The town then expanded until it adjoined these quarries.

In the Geduld constituency in Benoni we have such an example of where the town has developed until it now adjoins such a stone quarry or sand-pit. The dangers this entails are obvious. There are only a single narrow road and a wire fence to keep the children living in the houses away from that deep, large quarry. At the same time the quarries pollute the lakes of Benoni. We consider this to be a real problem. The quarries should be encircled by a green belt. When it becomes necessary for the hon. the Minister to allocate an area near a municipal area or town for the reclamation of sand or clay, or anything else, is it the Minister’s policy to enclose such an area with a green belt to prevent the urban development from extending right up to such a quarry? The big, heavy vehicles moving through such a residential area cause a terrible disturbance, and apart from that they ruin the municipal roads. We should like to support the hon. the Minister in this principle, once he has given us the assurance that he will require the exploiters of these natural resources to establish a buffer belt, to repair the damage and to restore the natural appearance of the area and ensure that the whole area surrounding such a quarry is safe.

The third principle is the establishment of these guide plan committees. They will be committees authorized to draw up guide plans. These guide plans have already been drawn up in the past, and we have asked that legal authority should be given to these guide plans so that they can be legally enforced. We only wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment will consult all the bodies concerned once again and will give them the necessary recognition by appointing representatives of those local authorities, municipalities, or other bodies, when the guide plans for a particular area are being discussed. In addition, the recommendations made by the bodies concerned will have to be carefully considered—because we believe that people who live in a particular area have a very good idea of how their particular town or city should be developed—and should then be incorporated into the national plan.

The fourth new principle concerns the appointment of a departmental administrative official to act as an investigating officer to investigate offences in terms of this Act. Sir, it is not very clear to me whether these investigating officers will investigate all offences in terms of the Act or whether they will only investigate contraventions of principles nos. 3, 4 and 8 as set out in the principal Act. If these investigations had been concerned with pollution by noise or smoke or unpleasant smells, poisons or anything of this nature, we could perhaps have supported the principle; or if these investigating officers had been appointed to investigate the spoiling of the environment by gravel quarries, roads or structures or by individual companies, commerce or industry, or if these investigations had been concerned with wasteful exploitation of the natural resources of the country, then we could perhaps have supported those aspects.

The United Party has called for an inspectorate before to inspect factories in order to ascertain to what extent they are polluting the environment. It would seem to me that these investigations will mainly be conducted in respect of contraventions of the provisions of section 2, 3 and 8. This is the main theme of this Act, and this we certainly cannot support, because the powers to be conferred upon such an inspector seem to us to be far too great. These investigations are really concerned, therefore, with the development of our industries and are intended to discipline those industries and to restrict their activities. The expansion of industries, even the appointment of one additional person, is restricted in terms of the Act and can be investigated in terms of this amendment.

We do not believe that it is in the interests of South Africa to restrict industries which have to grow and develop and expand. This is what this Bill is doing, and for that reason we cannot support it. The powers to be conferred upon this so-called investigating officer is greater than those exercised by the S.A. Police at the moment. He can enter any premises at any time during the day without previous notice and without a warrant. I should like to know whether “any premises” includes a person’s private house. As it reads here, “any premises”, without qualification, means any private house as well. In addition, he can at any time and at any place require a person in possession of a book, document or other thing to submit this to him. He can make extracts from or copies of it or seize it. Sir, these are powers which even a police officer cannot exercise without a warrant.

Does a labour inspector have a warrant?

This inspector can go through people’s personal wallets. He can even read a person’s private letters in terms of the powers conferred upon him by this Act, and this we certainly cannot support. We feel that this invades the individual’s privacy; that a person’s privacy in his house can be invaded in terms of this provision. Such a person is guilty of an offence if, in the opinion of such an investigating officer, he has failed to answer fully or satisfactorily to questions. The investigating officer can also fix a time and place at which an individual to be investigated by him is to appear before him. We feel that such powers are really excessive and are not in the spirit of a democracy. These are sweeping powers which one cannot support, and they remind one of the commissioners one finds in communist countries. [Interjections.] Consequently we oppose and reject this measure, because it is not in the spirit of a democratic South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should not like to discriminate between the hon. members for Hillbrow and Benoni, but the whole speech of the hon. member for Benoni up to about two minutes ago really consisted of nothing but one big question mark. Many of the replies to the questions he asked are contained in the Bill, of course, but I do think it is very foolish indeed to allege that the main theme of this Bill is the inspection clause, and that after the hon. member for Benoni had pointed out the advantages of the Bill himself. Upon analysing the content of this Bill, one comes to the conclusion that it is concerned with the totality of planning, on a regional or area basis. This global regional or area planning adds a new dimension to South Africa’s planning as such, and where planning often used to be conducted on a local or an ad hoc basis, it is now to be conducted on a much wider basis, and in my opinion the great advantage of the Bill is that it is concerned with advance planning and that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

There are many planners who allege that one cannot really plan more than 15 or 16 years ahead because we live in an atomic age in which technology and techniques change almost from day to day. If we think back only about 10 or 15 years, we realize that it was unthinkable at that time for people to build a house on a plot of 8 000 square feet. People actually laughed at township developments such as those in Boston or Sinoville, north of Pretoria, and yet, in spite of the fact that there are no estates to be found there any more, they are among the best townships in South Africa today. Today it is being provided that land may be zoned or reserved by means of guide plans and provisions in the guide plans so that it will be possible to determine where an industry is to be established, where the access roads to and from such an industry will be built. Our town and city planners and our local authorities will now be able to use a different method from the old haphazard one, because the framework of planning has already been provided and all they are really expected to do is to fill in the details so that the local planning will harmonize with the greater whole which is planned for the specific area. In the past, certain factors were borne in mind when an industry was established. For example, there had to be water and labour, transport facilities and raw materials had to be available or it had to be near a harbour, etc. Of course, this kind of industrial centralization had certain consequences, some of which were very unfavourable. In this way, for example, we have had the depopulation of the rural areas, and today we find that once stable and bustling towns have changed into ghost towns, that many houses in the smaller towns all over South Africa are un occupied and that schools which used to be high schools or secondary schools have been down-graded to become primary schools. Those of us who use to attend farm schools think with a little nostalgia of their disappearance. Another result of industrial centralization which we very easily lose sight of, of course, is the fact that when the Whites moved away from the smaller towns to the cities and the mines, the Coloured people and the Black people of those areas were forced to follow them, because these people had to have jobs. These people also need food and clothes. Our housing problems then arose as a result of the industrial centralization which we are now trying …

Order! The hon. member must get away from generalities.

Mr. Speaker, all I am trying to indicate is that by means of the guide plan with which we are dealing now and for which provision has been made in the Bill, we are in fact getting away from industrial centralization, which caused us to be faced with Windermeres and Vlakfonteins. Industrial centralization caused us to be faced with pollution, such as pollution of the environment by plastic, paper and cans, which pollute our parks and rivers today. This legislation is aimed at industrial decentralization, and by giving effect to it, we shall be able to reduce these problems to more manageable proportions. As our cities grow in size, they become clumsier and more unmanageable and our problems in regard to transport, pollution and housing are aggravated. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked why we could not have cosmopolitan areas. Let us look at examples of large cosmopolitan areas, such as the city of Tokyo. There they have found that only now they are able to combat pollution to such an extent that they will probably comply with their own legal provisions in five years’ time. One of the problems which South Africa must guard against is allowing industrial centralization to go too far and allowing clumsy cities to develop. This can be prevented by arranging for development to take place on a decentralized basis.

This Bill provides, inter alia, in the definition of “use of land” and in proposed section 4(1), for land to be reserved for roads, railways and airports. One feels that something of this nature is really long overdue and that we should have started long ago to apply it in our cities—to take Pretoria as an example—so that it could have been determined well in advance what the route of a railway line or of a road would be. If such measures had been taken, we should not have had the problems which we have today in Pretoria. We have only two access roads to Pretoria from the north, while the area north of Pretoria—in other words, to the north of the Magaliesberg—is really zoned as the escape area if Pretoria has to be evacuated. Today we find that it is being provided, inter alia, that land for an airport can be reserved in advance. One hopes that when the committee which will deal with this, or the hon. the Minister, has to decide on the siting of an airport within a new growth point—such as the Saldanha, Newcastle, or Richards Bay areas—they will find an area which will have less affinity for foggy weather than, for example, the D.F. Malan or Jan Smuts airports.

I want to refer to the allocation of areas where gravel, clay or sand may be mined. When one enters Pretoria from the north, west or east, the first thing which strikes one is the way the Magaliesberg—it is true that this is not as big a mountain as the mountains of the Cape—has already been spoilt. The hon. the Minister will now be able to determine in advance where gravel, sand or clay may be mined in future without necessarily spoiling the natural surroundings.

Then I want to refer to clause 10 of the Bill. It serves no purpose to have provisions in legislation if there are no methods for enforcing the legislation. In any case, it is a logical principle in my opinion that it should be possible to enforce certain provisions of the legislation and that it should be possible to ensure that they are complied with. Where periodic inspections will be conducted by authorized persons in terms of the legislation, this is nothing new in our legislation. This is something we find in our industrial legislation in any case. Without this it would be impossible to ascertain which industrialists deliberately contravene the provisions while the others try to comply with the provision relating to the proportion of Whites to non-Whites. It would be impossible to enforce the legislation and to ensure that it is complied with if the hon. the Minister does not have the power to appoint inspectors or persons from his department who can conduct inspections.

I believe that the legislation is essential and should be supported by all hon. members. I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill we are dealing with is in many respects a good Bill and is in these respects the interests of South Africa, its economy and its people. It is unfortunate that included in the Bill there should be one section which, if it is applied in the way in which, we suspect it may be applied, will spoil the Bill as a whole, and which makes it necessary for us to oppose the Bill, whereas we would very much have liked to have given our wholehearted support to it. Indeed, we would have supported it if we had only to deliberate and decide on its positive aspects.

Let us deal with the “good news” contained in this Bill first. The matters for which the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment is responsible are, I believe, amongst the most important responsibilities of the Government of South Africa. As I have said here on many previous occasions, he has the most important task as far as the country and its people are concerned, that task being the planning of our future and the planning of the exploitation, preservation and conservation of the environment, the planning of the application and conservation of natural resources and seeing to it that in fact there will be a place for the people of South Africa to live prosperous and happy lives in the decades and centuries that lie ahead. I should just like to repeat a few points which I think are absolutely essential and which are in many respects dealt with in this Bill. As is the case with every other country in the world, the natural resources and mineral resources of South Africa are largely non-renewable. They cannot be replaced and in many respects the products derived from those natural resources cannot be substituted by other products either. Therefore it is of vital importance to the survival of man and of our society that our natural resources be applied very judiciously and that every possible step be taken to preserve and conserve those natural resources.

The second point I should like to make, concerns the population explosion of the world and the fact that the population of South Africa may be double what it is at present by the year 2000. The responsibility of providing food for those people is also a concern. By the year 2000 more than 90% of the world’s population will be living below the bread-line and millions of people will die each year from starvation. One of the points I want to make applies to fertilizer. The only reason the world can produce the volumes of food it is producing at the present time is that it has fertilizers, produced from largely mineral products, which stimulate the growth and production of food. However, these fertilizers are in themselves non-renewable resources for which there are no substitutes to effect the growth and stimulation of food. I believe there is virtually no answer to this problem and it is one of the things this hon. Minister must look to. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister must balance the encouragement of economic growth against the responsibilities he has to preserve and conserve our natural resources and nature.

Order! The hon. member must steer away from a general discussion.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall. I knew that sooner or later you were going to rule accordingly. I shall now try to obey your ruling.

Some of the aspects which apply here are those that deal with the local planning committees which will be set up and which will undertake planning in all its aspects in various prescribed areas. In so planning, they will liaise with the provinces and the local authorities concerned and with any other authorities or organizations in the areas in question who have an interest in the planning of that area. I have some interest in provincial planning and in departments involved in provincial planning and I have had some experience with regard to local authorities and their problems. I should like to point out that the hon. the Minister is going to experience problems in this field, but unlike some of the other speakers, I believe that these problems will be overcome because there are obvious reasons why the interests of the various authorities that are involved must be subject to liaison and must dovetail with one another. One of the biggest problems which has been experienced to date is that many local authorities have of their own accord set about creating comprehensive plans for their areas. The hon. the Minister knows very well that this goes back some years, and that there are local authorities which have set about producing comprehensive guide plans for their areas. There is a problem involved here in that the criteria on which the local, authorities produce these plans differ widely from one local authority to another, because to a large extent the local authorities have in fact made use of professional organizations, and different professional organizations operate in terms of different criteria. They also have different philosophies with regard to the production of guide plans. This is unfortunate because it means that when you try to bring these plans together, you have certain difficulties. You also have difficulties between the provinces and the local authorities concerned in that they too sometimes have different approaches. Much of the planning that local authorities have done has not met with the requirements laid down by the various provincial administrations. I think that the Bill will go a long way towards providing an answer to this specific problem.

I do not share to the same extent the problems of previous speakers, who fear that the hon. the Minister will now dictate to provinces and local authorities and that he will override all the interests and rights of provinces and local authorities. I hope that that is not so and I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the House to give an undertaking that it is not the intention of the Bill or of his department to override the provinces and local authorities or to dictate to them. However, what is absolutely essential is that there should be an authority—the authority is going to be exercised by this department—that will, in fact, liaise with all the other organizations, set minimum standards and bring about a standardization in the procedures which are applied. Such an authority must also provide an overall general plan into which all the planning of the other organizations can fit. The trouble is that many local authorities that want to become involved in planning have neither the experience nor the knowledge to do it properly. They do not have any background whatsoever. As a result of the shortage of trained planners in South Africa, they start off on their own accord and later they find that they have produced plans which do not conform to the required standards of either the provincial administration concerned or the hon. the Minister’s department. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s department will be able to provide a very valuable service if it sets about producing an overall planning programme which will provide the guidelines and lay down the procedures which are required by all other authorities in order to succeed with their planning. I hope that it is in fact in that light that the hon. the Minister sees his responsibility and not in the light of a department which will dictate in all respects to there other authorities.

One of the problems with which the hon. the Minister will have to deal is the fact that in South Africa, where the concept of guide plans is something which on local authority and provincial levels is somewhat recent—I refer to forward planning and preplanning—we have a tremendous shortage of qualified personnel in this field. If one thinks in terms of what is required over the next couple of decades in order to bring the whole of South Africa into a master forward plan and one bears in mind the personnel requirements, then the hon. the Minister should give consideration at this stage to stimulating the training of planners, to providing bursaries at universities and to providing other incentives to staff in order to become trained planners.

Another important thing is the consideration of the attitudes and sensitivities of the public when planning takes place, because immediately plans are produced which deal with the uses to which land can be put, the setting up of disciplines and the setting up of guidelines as to the activities of the public on their own land, various problems arise. The public immediately are very suspicious of this sort of planning and they immediately feel that this type of plan is going to restrict their activities and that it is going to prevent them from making the profits they could possibly have made. They also feel that it is going to interfere with them as far as the use of their own land is concerned. The public naturally tend to be suspicious and to think that the Government is taking things from them which it should not. One of the most important aspects of this planning is that the Government should at all stages establish good relationships with the public, that they should communicate with them and that they should keep them fully informed. Often the complaint of the public is that they are not properly informed by the Government. One of the things which is not provided for and which, to my mind, should be provided for, is that when the planning committees start their operations and they start having their meetings and considering the documents placed before them, the public should have an opportunity of participating in the activities of the planning committees. They should have he opportunity of being present and they should also have the opportunity of listening to the evidence which is led. They should be involved in the activities of the committees. They should, above all, be fully informed as to what a particular committee is doing, how it is setting about its work and what it is aiming at. When you involve the public you get far more co-operation from them as well as acceptance, to a greater degree, of the activities and decisions taken.

I think it is important that a list of priorities in the planning of South Africa should be published. This should include the areas that are to be planned as well as the priorities in the areas to be planned. It is important that an annual report should be submitted, particularly to Parliament, in which the planning that has taken place and the progress that has been made are set out.

I would now like to deal with clause 10, in regard to which the most objections have been made on this side of the House, and in respect of which the biggest problems and the most suspicion exists in regard to this particular amending Bill. Clause 10 empowers the department to enforce the particular provisions of the amending Bill. The feeling is that this will allow interference in the business, activities and affairs of owners and operators of property. I think the reaction has been exaggerated. Obviously any Government department which deals with the operations of the public, of businessmen, industrialists, fire departments, police departments, labour departments, health departments, as well as local authorities and their various departments, must have the right to communicate with those organizations and to discuss with them the requirements and the provisions of the various Acts and laws which apply to them. I do not think, therefore, that it is wrong that the Department of Planning, which is in fact at present assuming some of the most important responsibilities in regard to the planning and development of South Africa, should have the right to enable their field staff to discuss with the people they communicate with, the provisions of all the laws applicable to them in order to provide guidance and assistance and to see to it that the provisions are not being contravened. I see no difficulty with that. However, it is the way in which the field staff of the department communicate with the organizations or people concerned that is important. It is the basis on which they communicate and make contact with them and it is the way in which they conduct their affairs that is important. It would appear from clause 10 that a person representing the department can arrive at the site of a factory, quarry or whatever the case may be unannounced. He will not be identified by a uniform or a badge and it does not appear to be a prerequisite for him to identify himself when he arrives there.

We accept the fact that he arrives there with a written instruction from the hon. the Minister and that can be accepted as being an indication that he has identified himself. He can arrive at any time and has the right to examine books, to remove books and to ask any questions he wishes to ask. It is felt that the occupiers or operators of property and of businesses will obviously object to an intrusion of that nature. I believe that all the problems and all the suspicions and all the difficulties and irritations involved could so easily be removed if it is provided that when a representative of the department concerned feels that there has been a contravention of the provisions of this law, if he is suspicious that activities are taking place which should not take place, he should avail himself of the simple procedure of a warrant to search. If that happens then at least if between officialdom or the authorities on the one hand and the person whose property or premises are being searched or on the other hand examined one interposes an independent person, being a magistrate or whoever issued the warrant, he would have to consider the grounds on which such a search should take place. He would then issue a warrant if he thinks that it should be done. I honestly believe that there is no reason why the concept of the necessity of a warrant for such a search or examination should not be accepted by the hon. the Minister. It would set at ease the minds of all the people involved and it would certainly remove all the suspicion which exists at the moment on this side of the House with regard to these particular provisions. After all, a factory or a quarry or an activity of that nature which may be illegal is not something which is going to disappear overnight. It is not something which will have disappeared within the day or two it takes for an inspector to arrive with a warrant, unless the illegal activity which the hon. the Minister is thinking of is something which can disappear overnight or is something which can disappear within a matter of a few hours such as so-called illegally employed Bantu. If the sole or main consideration of this provision is in order to deal with so-called illegal Bantu; in other words, to deal with the labour problem, then I can see the motivation for an inspector to be able to arrive at any time and have immediate access to the records and the premises. Then, however, we have other very serious reservations and objections because our approach is that where labour is needed for the economy of the country, for the proper operation of the country’s industries and its economy, where people need work and want to work, every facility must be made available in order to assist them to obtain work. In other words, job seekers and job opportunities should be brought together …

Irrespective of the consequences?

Not irrespective of the consequences. I do not know what consequences the hon. member over there is speaking about. However, in terms of the real interests of the people of South Africa, irrespective of their colour and where and how they want to work …

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville is leading the hon. member along the wrong road.

I was hoping that … [Interjections.] the hon. member for Carletonville had given me an opportunity to deal with something which your ruling was not going to allow me to deal with. Provided clause 10, is intended to deal mainly with contraventions of the requirements with regard to the type of activity which is allowed in terms of the guide plan, there is no reason why a warrant should not be a prerequisite for an examination or inspection. If the intention is to impose ideological requirements in regard to labour, then the entire concept is totally unacceptable and we must oppose it. In view of what we have said and because clause 10 spoils the Bill, it will unfortunately be necessary for us to oppose the Bill as such.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should like to make a remark about this Bill before us today. In my opinion, this Bill is very important in two respects. In the first place, I think we are now for the first time getting a measure which, provides the Department of Planning with the necessary teeth to implement previous legislation and other functions of the department properly. It is in the interests of the whole of South Africa that we should have an Act which provides the department with the necessary support to enable it to perform its task. In the second place—and this is what hon. members on this side of the House are really concerned about—by means of this legislation we are providing the department with support in order to ensure that our policy in regard to the decentralization of industries may be properly implemented. As far as I am concerned, it is vital that the policy of the decentralization of industries be implemented, and not merely, as hon. members opposite like to maintain, because it is supposedly part of the ethnic ideology of the National Party that we should decentralize. Examples can be found throughout the world of cases where such a multinational situation does not exist, but where it is essential to decentralize for the sake of good order and for the sake of the survival of the economy of a country. When we talk about decentralization …

Order! The hon. member should not try to conduct a general discussion. Section 3 of the principal Act is not being amended, except in one respect.

I am fully aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to clause 10 of the Bill, to which hon. members also referred and to which the enforceability of the regulations of this Bill is being applied, in regard to decentralization as well. However I shall defer to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and leave the issue of decentralization at that. I should like to come back to what the hon. member for Bryanston had to say. In the first place, he said that he foresaw problems for the department or regards provision of the necessary staff to be able to enforce what has to be enforced in terms of this legislation. The hon. member added that he had city council, provincial council and similar experience as regards planning, but apparently the hon. member is unaware that we in South Africa are in fact rather worried about all the planners who are being trained at the institutes of the various universities because it is possible that there will not be sufficient work for those people in the future. And then there are the Universities of the Witwatersrand, Potchefstroom and Pretoria, where there are institutes for town and regional planners and where sufficient people are being trained to perform this kind of work. The hon. member added that when a guide plan committee is appointed for an area, that committee must be capable of communicating with the community for whom a guide plan is being compiled. Apparently the hon. member was not in the House when the hon. the Minister’s Vote was being discussed. We debated the whole issue of dialogue between the guide plan committees, the Department of Planning and the company for whom planning was being done, under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. There are organizations such as regional development associations and the country has in fact been divided into 38 regions. Regional development associations are now being established under the guidance of the Department of Planning and the Environment, and they will consist of people from the area for which planning is being carried out. Now I know that the hon. the Minister and his department are very insistent that these regional development associations should be consulted, and this is being done through the composition of the guide plan committees. The hon. member need not be concerned that these guide plan committees will not have contact with the department and the guide plan committees.

It is perhaps necessary for us to say just a few words about the whole issue of warrants. The hon. member and other hon. members referred to this. At one stage I was very concerned because it almost seemed as if the hon. member for Bryanston and I would be in agreement as regards this legislation. Fortunately, he then came along with the parting shot that he was unhappy about the whole issue of warrants. When we discuss warrants, we should at least take a look at the history of warrants and search-warrants. We should take a look at how they have developed. If a policeman with a warrant enters certain premises, that policeman has certain data or suspicions which he can submit to the person concerned who is authorized to issue such a warrant. However, on looking at the matter more closely, we find that at that stage, too, it is only suspicions which can be submitted to a presiding officer, magistrate or whoever the case may be, in order that a warrant may be issued. We do not have here an Act which we shall use to launch a witch-hunt against people. What we have here is an Act which is designed specifically to expedite planning and the proper ordering of matters. There has never been evidence in the past that this department is inclined to prosecute people in regard to these aspects. However, if an inspector has certain suspicions, why should he first go to some presiding officer, such as a magistrate or any person authorized to issue warrants, to obtain a warrant in order to be able to enter the premises in question? This is merely a technical detail. If it just looks as if something is being done to the so-called rule of law, those hon. members want to explode. In practice, the rule of law is not being affected here. This is merely a technical detail which looks like an infringement of the rule of law. The point at issue is the suspicion. If an inspector has a suspicion, whether he goes to someone to issue a warrant for him or not, the suspicion remains precisely the same. One is not protecting anyone by issuing a warrant. One is only making the work of such an inspectorate impossible. Time is always a factor in this regard. As the hon. member himself mentioned, one often has to do with people whose intention it is to evade the law.

Why does it not make the work of the Police impossible?

No, that hon. member is merely displaying his ignorance. The activities of the Police cover an entirely different field. Their activities in no way correspond with those of these inspectors. That is an entirely different matter. In any event, each time it is a crime which is being investigated. However it is a crime which is different in degree and nature and that is why the distinction may be drawn. It is merely logical, sound government to act as is now being proposed in this legislation.

In conclusion, I should very much like to say something about the guide plan committee. In the establishment of the guide plan committee as contained in this Bill, we have achieved a long-cherished ideal, in that through this guide plan committee we have involved all the interested persons in this matter, persons with an intimate knowledge of the area being planned, not only the mineral resources, but the people of that region as well. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. The success of planning does not lie solely in having a plan compiled for an area by way of a guide plan. Success consists in having the plan which is compiled, accepted by that region, and in the people of that region being prepared to implement the plan and do everything possible to link it with the wider planning of our national development plan. Here let me also say, in passing, to the hon. member for Bryanston, that it is surely not true that priorities have not been set. The National Physical Development Plan which has just been issued as a result of outstanding work on the part of the Department of Planning, has surely established the priorities in broad outline and it is now for guide plan committees in the various regions to determine their priorities. But it is pointless for a region or a guide plan committee to set certain priorities which do not link up with the wider planning of South, Africa. As far as this aspect is concerned, I want to express the greatest appreciation for the fact that we are getting a guide plan committee which can provide us with such a guide plan, and for the fact that we know that that guide plan committee will cooperate with the regional development association and the other organizations concerned so as to take the community with them and in this way achieve our ideal.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke has made some remarks about warrants, to which I will come back later in my speech, but I find his ideas in regard to the necessity or otherwise for warrants somewhat extraordinary to say the least of it.

Looking at this Bill, one can only do so with mixed feelings. Some of the provisions are praiseworthy but on the other hand some of the suggested provisions are anything but praiseworthy. Therefore we in this party cannot support them. The hon. member for Schweizer Reneke spoke about the giving of teeth to the Physical Planning Act. I have always been somebody who has supported this giving of teeth to the Department of Planning, but regrettably some of the teeth envisaged by this Bill are biting in the wrong direction.

The Bill contains four basic principles, which have already been outlined by the hon. the Minister. The first of these is the power to reserve land for specific purposes as outlined in clause 4. This we cannot quarrel with, and it has our support in principle. The second principle covered by the Bill prohibits the utilization of land without a permit for the purpose of quarrying or brick-making or ceramic operations and other associated work of this nature. Necessary as all these operations are, without control of this nature, much damage can be done to our environment to the detriment of the well-being of the majority of the population. This was brought home to me just the other day when I was crossing a bridge across the beautiful Knysna estuary and saw opposite me a great scar across the face of the hillside, a very ugly scar indeed. This scar is a quarry, a blot on the landscape of one of the most beautiful areas in our country. Certainly we would support this principle because we think it is very necessary indeed. The third principle in the Bill concerns the power to constitute guide committees and to set up guide plans. This is clearly the most important provision in the Bill in that it is obviously desirable that a degree of planning should be carried out prior to the formal establishment of a controlled area in terms of the principal Act. Planning of this sort is very necessary to enable land in our country to be used to the maximum benefit of all the people. It is necessary to conserve the environment, and it is necessary in order to ensure that the enormous amount of development that will have to take place in South Africa with our rapidly increasing population, our continued industrialization and our continued urbanization of the population, will take place orderly, is planned and co-ordinated, because rich as we are in natural resources, if these resources are not developed sensibly and intelligently and land is not used to its maximum potential, our riches could waste away in a most disastrous manner for the future prosperity of South Africa. In other words, we must use our resources in this country in the most advantageous manner possible at the same time conserving our environmental assets, not only for ourselves but also for future generations. There is the preservation of good agricultural land, for example, and the preservation of the beauty of the countryside, the retention of the environment we have in order to ensure that the quality of life enjoyed by South Africans is as high as possible. That is obviously a gaol we would all work for, and the setting up of guide plans of this nature will obviously help towards this. For this reason we give our support to the third principle contained in the Bill before us.

But it is when we come to the fourth principle contained in this Bill that we have our major quarrel with the hon. the Minister and members of the Government. This principle, as the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke says, gives teeth to the original Act. But unfortunately I believe they are false teeth, because they are designed to enforce the provisions off the original Act which are not in the best interests of the country. I do not believe that the enforcement of these provisions is in the best interests of the country. Firstly we are faced once again with the insatiable appetite of bureaucracy to take powers to excess, powers which are probably the province and function of the Police. In terms of the envisaged new section 9A the Secretary for Planning and the Environment, we are told, may give written instructions to an officer not lower than the rank of administrative officer, whatever that may mean, without a warrant to conduct searches at any time of the day, although this is apparently not so at night, to demand the production of any book or document or thing and to examine the same and furthermore to interrogate persons who may in his view have relevant information and to require that they appear before him and submit themselves for examination. Apart from the fact that this sort of investigation is properly the function of the Police and not of any other department of the State, I would suggest the necessity for action without warrant is an intrusion into a very basic right. The hon. member for Schweizer Reneke, who has now left the Chamber, obviously does not believe that this is a basic right. He just says it complicates the duties of the official concerned. But the same applies to the Police. This obviously complicates the actions of any police officer who is investigating something but it is a necessary complication. That is the whole idea of having a warrant, as the hon. member for Hillbrow says, because it is a defence of the rights of the individual. I do not believe that the procurement of a warrant can in any way jeopardize the object of such a search and I believe that it is necessary for such an official, if he is to have these powers at all, to have to get a warrant from a responsible magistrate or somebody of that nature. It is also necessary I believe—and this does not appear to be covered by any provision of this Bill, and perhaps the hon. the Minister might be able to give me some guidance on this—to preserve a legal privilege, for example the right of an attorney to refuse to produce certain communications and documents passing between him and his client. In terms of this Bill, an inspector is entitled to take any document at all that he likes and this legal privilege is done away with. I should also like to say that there appears to be a necessity for the right of any person subpoenaed to refuse to answer questions put to him on the grounds that it may incriminate him. This is a very basic part of our law. Nobody should be put in the position where he has to incriminate himself but should be able to refuse to answer self-incriminatory questions. But this is precluded in terms of this Bill. These are very basic rights which are part and parcel of the whole principle of the rule of law, which is so scorned by hon. members on the other side of the House.

But our opposition to this clause is not only based on this intrusion into basic individual rights, but our total opposition is to the fact that they are designed to extend the enforcement of provisions which are based on a nonsensical ideology which is doing immense harm to the South African economy and therefore to South Africa itself. When looking at these provisions, this enforcement, we must not let ourselves be sidetracked into believing that they have anything at all to do with the preservation of the environment because they do not. They are designed to enforce an ideological decentralization of industry which does not make sound economic sense. Looking at this enforcement in terms of clause 10, I do not think there is anybody in this House who does not believe that the decentralization of industry is a good thing. The difference between hon. members in these benches and hon. members on the other side of the House is that we believe in decentralization based on sound, economic criteria, while the Government believes in ideological decentralization which makes no sense at all in that it is a product of a racialism and a philosophy which does not see South Africa as an economic unit.

Order! I think the hon. member has made his point.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am attempting to do. However, not having been given the facility of giving the background and motivation when stating the case of my party, it is a little difficult to explain our opposition to clause 10 without going into a little of the background. I hope, therefore, Sir, that you will allow me a little latitude in this. I shall do my best to abide by your ruling.

It is all written out and has already been handed to the Press.

Not at all. The hon. member for Durban Point says that it has all been written out and has already been handed to the Press. I sometimes wonder whether the hon. member for Durban Point has the ability to write at all. We believe that the decentralization of industry to natural growth points in terms of raw material, labour potential and so forth, must be encouraged by any Government. The setting up of guide plans to do the sort of thing envisaged by this legislation is a very good idea indeed. However, we believe that these should be natural growth points and not growth points which are dictated by ideological criteria. We have heard it put forward in this House again and again that growth is the way towards containing the inflationary spiral to which we are being subjected at the present time. We are told that it is the answer to many of our problems. Here, however, we are dealing with the enforcement of provisions which inhibit and restrict that growth to the detriment of our prosperity. No business ever remains static; it either grows or it dies. It cannot just remain static. I realize that in many cases in the past the department has given its blessing to applications for an increase in the number of Black workers employed in a particular area. However, this is not good enough; it is still very stultifying. I want to say that we do not have the urge which this Government seems to have towards a sort of self-destruction in that it does not want to follow economic criteria. We believe that the development of existing growth points, and decentralization to new, natural growth points, must go hand in hand. We also believe that restrictions on the labour and skills of Black people in existing industrial areas can almost be described as suicidal.

What is your definition of a natural growth point?

Obviously, the reasoning behind clause 10 of this Bill is a desperate attempt to stem the inevitable harking back to the old 1978 mentality with no more Black people coming into the White areas. We had hoped that the Government was beginning to forget about this, that it was beginning to change its ideas, but evidently that 1978 mentality is still with it and we are going to be saddled with it for some time. We would urge that this whole philosophy, this enforcement envisaged by clause 10, is not carried through. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that not even clause 10—in fact, nothing that he can do—can stem the tide because South Africa needs Black people in the so-called White areas if we are going to be prosperous. The hon. the Minister knows that the present provisions are honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. There is no doubt why clause 10 is in this Bill before us. It is a desperate attempt to enforce this ideology which seriously inhibits growth in this country, and again, the people of South Africa are being forced to pay through the nose for this misguided ideology.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a reasonable degree of latitude. He must now come back to the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall abide by your decision. To finalize this point, may I just say that rather than spend the money to enforce this ideology, I believe that we should spend our time and effort in building more houses and providing more amenities for the inevitable growth in the Black labour force.

All in all, because of clause 10, we find ourselves unable to support this otherwise praiseworthy Bill. It is a praiseworthy Bill but it is spoilt by clause 10. There are a number of matters which we want to raise with the hon. the Minister at the Committee Stage. I want to say that we will vote against the Bill at Second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the point made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, viz. that one may incriminate oneself. The hon. member stated that there was no protection against one’s incriminating oneself under this Bill. I should like to refer him to clause 11 of the Bill which reads that an offence is committed when any person without “sufficient cause”—that is very important—refuses or fails to answer fully and satisfactorily. The common law is very clear on the point that one need not incriminate oneself and the principle is being built in here that it will constitute adequate reason to refuse if by answering one would incriminate oneself. Later in my speech I shall deal with the other aspects raised by the hon. member.

Looking at this Bill now during the Second Reading, it is imperative that we bear in mind general planning principles and also the necessity for planning as it should be implemented in South Africa. Here I just want to mention a definition of “planning” which, in my opinion, fits in with the Bill as we shall deal with it. Planning may be regarded as action taken with the aim of organizing the social and physical environment of Man. It results in the elimination of tension and conflict and in addition, a stimulation of balanced growth and development. In his book, Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning, Lewis Keeble states that there are four characteristics for successful physical planning. The first is—

The second important point is—

The third point is very important in this regard—

Looking at clause 4 of this Bill, we see that certain reservations are made for certain uses corresponding with point number 3. The fourth point he makes is—

That is ecology, those quarries which have been referred to, which we must bear in mind when planning is carried out. Once again we find this principle, too, in this Bill. Consequently, I venture to say that the whole effect of this Bill is to make it possible to apply sound planning principles here in South Africa. I want to go so far as to say that now is the first time that this has been the case. When one plans, one also has to consider whether this bill involves the correct people in the planning process. It is pointless to plan if one does not involve the right people in the planning process. There are three groups in particular whom we must ensure the Bill provides for as regards their involvement in this planning process. We are not planning merely for the fun of it; we are planning for people; we are planning for the citizens of South Africa so that they can live here happily and prosperously, as regards the economic sphere as well. I should like to mention these three groups. In the first instance, we have to consider whether we can involve the citizens of the country themselves in the planning process. We must provide for channels to enable the citizen of the country to bring his planning, as he considers it should be done, to the attention of the authorities or the planning bodies, and submit it to them.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the adjournment for dinner, there are three groups of people who must be involved in the planning legislation, and it is important that they be so involved. The first group we must involve is the citizens of the country, because, after all, it is for their sake that planning is carried out. I should like to mention one channel through which the citizens of the country can make their voices heard successfully. One is that they should involve themselves in the hearings that take place, at which evidence is given and written submissions invited. The citizens of the country must come forward when the planning of a specific area is involved and they must say what they feel about that planning. In this regard the new section 6A(3) clearly states that anyone can take part in the process within 60 days after notice of a draft guide plan has been given. The citizens have the fullest right to take part in this and it is well that they take cognizance of the fact that we should like to hear how they feel about the planning of any specific region. After a draft guide plan has been compiled it is sent to the various provinces, and there the representatives of the people can also have a say in the planning process at the provincial level. Because planning is not static, provision must also be made for changes to the guide plans. That possibility is provided for under the new section 6A(11). Looking at this section, one can only say that the citizens of the country have a full say in the planning process.

The second important group which must have a say is the officials, because they are people to whom, by virtue of their skill and experience, this planning is entrusted. They are there to make policy recommendations to the hon. the Minister and to co-ordinate the Government departments with regard to planning right across the planning spectrum. In this way, co-ordinated planning can be ensured. It may be seen that the new section 6A(7) provides for that.

The third important element or group of persons which has to be brought into the picture in this regard—I believe that everyone will agree with me on this Wednesday evening after 8 o’clock—is the politicians. [Interjections.] By virtue of the fact that politicians are elected by the community, they must have their say in the determining of policy and priorities, and provision is made for that possibility in subsections (8), (9), (11) and (13) of the new section 6A. We see that the Cabinet must determine the priorities and the standards of planning.

Looking at these three groups, we note that this is an exceptionally fine piece of legislation which fully meets the requirements I have just stated. It is also true that attention must be given to the ecology. This has already been discussed and consequently I shall not dwell on it further, except to say that attention is given to this aspect, too, in clause 4. For this, however, the necessary machinery is necessary. The establishment of the administrative possibilities of planning is of no avail if we do not establish the machinery to enforce the planning and to ensure that this planning is implemented. That is why clauses 10 and 11 are of the utmost importance, and it is in respect of those two clauses in particular that the attack of the Opposition has been launched.

A reasonable attack.

Let me put it like this: It is time the Opposition accepted and realized that we are in earnest in carrying out the policy of separate development. We are in earnest in bringing about decentralization and establishing influx control. We are in earnest, too, as regards the strict control of the ratio of Black and White employment.

However I fully understand why the United Party is opposing clause 10. In their philosophy of race federation they deny the right of existence of separate peoples. They have the financial power in their hands and they do not want competition from the separate peoples. They would like to have the other peoples as a minor partner in terms of their federation plan.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I just want to refer briefly to the Progressive Party, which also objected to this clause. They make a big fuss about the “equitable division of wealth”. The question is whether border industries may not, then, be established or an infrastructure built up for the people.

Order! The hon. member is not yet obeying my ruling.

Try the next page.

Looking at this planning legislation from the point of view of the citizen of the country, the politician and the official, we see that they are being involved in the planning process as they should be, and that this Bill is a blueprint for the balanced progress of the Republic of South Africa. It also aims to ensure that balanced progress. That is why I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Pretoria West and to the other hon. members on that side of the House, as well as to the members of the small parties in this House. The contents of their speeches were such that the standpoint of the Opposition in respect of this Bill seems to be perfectly correct.

†The hon. members for Pretoria West, Bryanston and Smithfield felt that there was nothing wrong with this draft Bill and that it did not impinge on provincial autonomy. Mr. Speaker, there is not a single member of the Reform Party in this House tonight, even though we shall be dealing with them in this debate.

There is only one Prog for that matter.

It is obvious that the hon. members have not read clause 6. If they had read it, they would have seen that the hon. the Minister has complete authority when it comes to taking final decisions on these guide plans. That is definitely an infringement of the powers of the administrators of the provinces. It cuts directly across provincial autonomy and no ministerial assurance can ever dispel that doubt in our minds. The hon. member for Bryanston waxed lyrical because he hopes the guide plan committee will provide the maps that the Progs/Reformist parties need so desperately to implement their policy. The hon. member for Bryanston is the man who referred to the rule of law 20 times in a speech the other day. In this particular Bill, the rule of law comes into play in clauses 10 and 11, and yet the hon. member merely glossed over the rule of law in his speech. As a matter of fact, he never mentioned the rule of law at all. Therefore it is left to the United Party to do so once again. We shall be introducing five amendments dealing with the rule of law in the Committee Stage. I feel very strongly about the fact that the hon. the Minister is usurping the planning function of the provinces. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why these guide committees and planning committees should not act under the auspices of the provincial administrations in the Republic. One must bear in mind in relation to provincial autonomy that the four Reformists came here with the policy of being strong in provincial autonomy in the Transvaal Provincial Council. This is what we are dealing with in this particular Bill in terms of the guide plan committee. The hon. member for Bryanston and his pitiful party throw provincial autonomy overboard in the same way as they threw their political principles overboard. The Reform Party by its attitude towards provincial autonomy and the rule of law and its attitude towards political principles, shows that it is the political Mafiosi of South African politics.

What does the hon. member mean by “Mafiosi”?

I am referring to the Reform Party in their method of operation. They are operating on a basis where they change with the wind.

Are you saying they are the Mafia?

Is the hon. member inferring that they are a Mafia-type party?

No, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the way they change. They came here on one principle, namely that of provincial autonomy, but since then they have now adopted a completely new principle, namely one that is not conducive for political parties in South Africa to adopt.

The hon. member must observe my ruling.

Proper planning, for whatever reason, is absolutely essential when conducting the affairs of a nation. Lack of planning leads to a backlog and to chaotic conditions. In so far as the planning aspect of this Bill is concerned, if it is going to be enforced to eliminate some of the problems which I am going to foreshadow, it may well herald a new charter for the property industry in South Africa, provided it is administered by the provincial authorities. However, before I deal with the planning aspect, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I consider clause 10 and the penalties that go with it punitive in the extreme. This clause can appropriately be called “the hounding, the terrorizing and the witch-hunt clause”. This clause as it stands does not permit this Act to be called the Environment Planning Act as it is a misnomer. It is the Persecution and the Conviction of the Industrialists Act. That is what its name should be. This clause is the result of the failure to apply the legislation in the past. On the principle of guide planning and decentralization there is no dispute between us, but the dispute comes into being in the technique and the reasons that the Government uses to achieve its aims. The guide plan committee, the Government and ourselves should consider that decentralization must be in the interests of the economy. The decentralized area must have labour, water, housing, electricity and the necessary infrastructure. The products of the industries must be easily marketable at their main points of supply. Of course, the committee must consider suitable incentives that must be given to industry. Up to this point I assume that the Government and the Opposition agree with each other. But then the Government goes further and by means of clause 10, which implements section 3, it introduces compulsion and rough-house tactics. We believe that will not achieve the ends that the hon. the Minister wishes to achieve. By all means, they must encourage industry by means of incentives to decentralize. Compulsion will merely slow down the industrial expansion of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members at the back over there must please keep quiet now.

If the guide plan committee has offered the industrialists all the incentives that it wishes to offer them and an industrialist still does not want to decentralize, the Government will be left with two choices. The one is to allow him to expand where he is or to build a new factory at the place of his choice. The other alternative left to the guide plan committee is to say to the industrialist that if he does not decentralize, they will refuse him permission to build a new factory or to extend his old factory. We believe that is totally wrong.

We want to know from the hon. the Minister today what he has done in cases where industrialists have refused to decentralize, and how many such cases are there? When an existing industry wishes to expand to maximum production capacity, obviously the guide plans committee must take into account that the industry will want to expand in the area where it is presently situated. There will be a cutting in overheads in the case of an existing structure. I feel it would be wrong for the guide plans committee not to take that factor into account. In fact, if the industry were forced to operate in another town, such compulsion would be an act of economic lunacy. Since this matter has come before us, the hon. the Minister has said, I think by way of an answer to a question in the Senate, that there have been 15 788 applications to establish industries in controlled areas. Of those, 14 265 were granted. That means that 1 523 applications were refused, which means in effect that employment for 82 183 Bantu was refused.

I now pose this question to the hon. the Minister. What has been the effect of the refusal of these 1 523 applications and what effect is this having on the expansion of South Africa? That is a subject which the guide plans committee must take into account when they consider this matter. It is so vita! that I expect that the hon. the Minister will have given specific instructions to his department to follow up those 1 523 applications. These are the applicants who will be prosecuted under this Act if they proceed without the permission of the department. We would like to know how many of these refused applicants moved to a decentralized area and how many Bantu were eventually employed. We would also like to know from the hon. the Minister how many of these applicants have decided to abandon their plans as a result of his refusal. What is the total value of the abandoned investment that would have been made had it not been for his refusal? We would like to know whether the 82 183 Bantu who were refused labour were all urban Bantu or contract labourers. In addition to the 82 183 Bantu, however …

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the Bill.

Mr. Sneaker, I respect your ruling. I shall do just that. In the Senate, Senator Dippenaar referred to the Coloureds being taken back in terms of the guide plan to Mamre and other places on the west coast to create a homeland for themselves The hon. the Minister must assure us that Senator Dippenaar is totally wrong …

Order! Is the hon. member about to refer to a debate in the Senate?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member may not do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Senate Hansard, col. 1815 …

Order! The hon. member may not refer to the Senate Hansard or to a Senate debate. The hon. member may only refer to the hon. the Minister’s speech there.

Mr. Speaker, I would merely like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that this is not the intention …

Order! The hon. member should have a look at Standing Order No. 110.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I would now like to deal with clause 6. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that if this Bill is properly implemented, it could mean a new dispensation for the property industry—every property owner and the thousands who earn a livelihood from the property industry in South Africa. Unfortunately, the way this Bill is worded, it could prove to be a double-edged sword. To me it seems, however, that there is a statement of intent to the effect that the land in South Africa must be used to the maximum extent and that the entire population must benefit to the greatest possible extent. I hope I am interpreting the Bill correctly because it is very vague on that particular score. To establish exactly where we stand with this guide plan concept, I would like to discuss some of the practical problems that we come across and I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister how he is going to solve those problems in terms of the guide plan.

I take it that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the greatest power he is getting under this Bill impinges on provincial autonomy. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us tonight whether he has the voluntary consent of all the provinces as far as this Bill is concerned. As these guide plan committees will be taking very far-reaching decisions which, are going to affect members of all race groups, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would give us the assurance that he will have members of every race group serving on these committees because all their property interests will be affected by these guide plans. I inferred from the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech that he was thinking of doing away with the Group Areas Board in the long term and that the guide plan committees were going to take the place of the Group Areas Board. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will comment on this point. I believe that the guide plan for Port Elizabeth is in the process of being completed, and I understand that when the guide plan is completed, it will be advertised for 60 days to allow for objections. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister when he advertises a guide plan for objections, whether in Port Elizabeth or any other place, to give the applicants 60 days to lodge their objections. However, there is no provision in the Bill for the hon. the Minister to reply to the objections or to allow the applicants to appeal against the Minister’s decisions. The hon. member for Wynberg has given notice of an amendment and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to accept it at this late stage because it makes provision for the objections to be taken further. The hon. the Minister knows what will otherwise happen. The objections will be considered in vacuo and the objectors will not know why the objections have been set aside.

I believe the hon. the Minister must adopt a reasonable attitude in this regard. The hon. the Minister will certainly be doing the people of South Africa a service if he instructs the guide plan committee to ensure that we do not have the hooting that keeps people awake, especially in the Port Elizabeth area, when making provision for railway lines. In fact, if the hon. the Minister does not ensure that he may find that a few of us will not come back again. The guide plan committee has an excellent opportunity of rectifying and restoring the rights that have been adversely affected by group area decisions. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister who has always struck me as being a very reasonable man.—but then I do not know him well enough—to allow, in relation to District Six and the group areas …

Order! On what clause is the hon. member speaking?

Sir, I am discussing the guide plan committee. I hope the hon. the Minister will instruct the guide plan committee to seek guidance from the Executive Committee of the Coloured Representative Council as well as the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council in relation to District Six. At present the Central Government laws can override town-planning schemes established by provincial ordinances. Central Government agencies have been known to ignore the provisions of town-planning schemes on occasion. The guide plan committee can ensure that all the Government agencies adhere to the planning schemes in future.

For the guidance of the guide plan committee I want to say that the agencies which have ignored these town-planning provisions in the past are the Department of Community Development, the Department of Public Works, the South African Railways and the National Transport Commission. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that once the guide plan is accepted it will be binding on the abovenamed authorities as it will be binding on the ordinary members of the public. I believe the guide plan committee will have a special responsibility and the hon. the Minister will have a special responsibility in this regard as well.

I would like to tell the hon. the Minister in all fairness that the guide plan committee is a step in the right direction. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in the mandate which he gives the guide plan committee he is going to instruct them to draw up town and regional planning legislation for South Africa with the intention firstly to standardize urban and planning legislation organization procedures in South Africa; secondly, to ensure that no Government department or agency can operate outside of the provisions of the legislation; and thirdly, to ensure that no Government department or agency can override town-planning schemes in operation without following the fair procedures laid down to all parties in the legislation; fourthly, to make provision for planning courts to be established so that all matters of dispute can be argued and heard in public; and fifthly, to make provision that all town-planning schemes and plans become legal documents which are available to the public for inspection and reference.

Furthermore, I believe that the reasons for all the decisions of the guide plan committee must be given and that the guide plan committee should establish a new town development commission. What is envisaged here, is a public utility company which will provide a direction and the resources for the establishment of new towns as are required, firstly, by the Saldnha Bay project; secondly, by the Richards Bay project; and thirdly, by the Sasol 2 project. This company should have the powers to expropriate and to build new townships for the Government or Government agencies. Such a company must be able to utilize professional planners in the hon. the Minister’s department and, if they feel they should, engage private planners. It is essential that the Central Government and the provincial administrations realize the importance of the local knowledge and the requirements of the different local authorities in South Africa. The Central Government and the provincial administrations should regulate the system and not run the system. Planning can easily be negated by bureaucracy.

I can see that the hon. the Minister’s department and the guide plan committee recommending all the matters which I have raised to the hon. the Minister as part of their programme, but the hon. the Minister must take the lead in this matter. There is one evil which the guide plan committee must bring to an end, namely, that because local authorities are short of finance they and some of their officials are pulling stunts to delay expropriation and payment that would make the stunts of A1 Capone look like a nursery school outing. I do not want the guide plan committee to become a party to that sort of action. That is why I want to warn them against the sort of things that happen in practice. At the same time, they must assist local authorities and they must allow them to get more finance because the local authorities are desperate and they cannot expropriate because they do not have enough money to do so. Any person who is injuriously affected by the coming into operation of the town-planning scheme is entitled to claim compensation. However, pending approval in terms of a local authority scheme and in terms of section 57 of the Ordinance, the municipality may not approve applications which do not conform to the proposed provisions of a scheme awaiting approval.

Therefore, local authorities have wide powers to operate town-planning schemes and to control development even prior to the administrator’s approval. I think that the hon. the Minister should be aware of that. Because of the above, few town-planning schemes have been proclaimed in the Cape Province. The reason usually given is that any proclamation of a scheme will result in numerous claims for compensation. Surely, if compensation is due then compensation must be paid? Unfortunately, in the Cape Ordinance the administrator may approve a scheme, whilst in the Transvaal Ordinance the administrator shall approve a scheme or shall reject a scheme. [Interjections.]

The hon. member is quite correct. There is a far better system in the Transvaal. They either accept or reject a scheme, whilst in the Cape Province the proviso is only that the administrator may approve a scheme. In cases where local authorities have acted very badly on appeal to the local government department in the Cape Provincial Administration, the provincial administration had forced the local authorities to expropriate. I say this to the everlasting credit of the provincial administration that they have acted in this particular manner. The problems go far deeper and that is what I want the guide plan committee to resolve. If they can resolve this sort of problems I believe that we stand on the threshold of a new era in the property industry. Here are a few examples of what the guide plan committee will find will happen when they consider these matters. In a small country town in the Cape Province a local authority kept a widow on a string for 15 years. She had a shop and she wanted to make improvements to the shop while her husband was alive. Because they required the property they told her that her plans could not be passed. After 15 years, when her husband passed away, she exerted pressure on the local authority. She had shown patience over all these years. The local authority was not prepared to do anything …

Order! What has this got to do with the Bill?

This deals with the guide plan committee and with the implementation of the guide plan committee, with respect, Sir. I merely want to say in this regard, in conclusion, that the municipality, at the insistence of the Principal Administration, served a preliminary notice of expropriation. The guide plan committee is going to find that that is going to happen to them as well. After the local authority had served the preliminary notice of expropriation, they failed to serve the final notice of expropriation, which they merely withdrew. Sir, the result is that after 15 years the widow is in exactly the same position as she was 15 years ago. Surely the guide plan committee is not going to allow local councils to operate in this particular fashion. Mr. Speaker, I am worried that city and town councils will now use the guide plan of the Government as an excuse for causing even greater delays. In another town, just to give a last example to the guide plan committee, a local authority zoned a property for open space, and when the owner claimed compensation they told him that it was not a public open space but a private open space. Obviously that is nonsensical and the province very correctly overruled the local authority. I want to tell the guide plan committee that those are the problems that they are going to face unless they have sufficient finance and place that finance at the disposal of the local authorities. I want the guide plan committee to know that there are people who are suffering grievous losses through, these actions on the part of local authorities, and I would like to appeal to them to take matters of this kind into account before they reach finality. Sir, should the hon. the Minister give this legislation a bit of teeth, or recommend to the provinces that they make it an offence for the officials and the committees of the local authorities to act in this sort of scandalous manner, then I believe that it will do a lot of good. I must say that my experience leads me to believe that the guide plan committee will receive a far better reception from the provincial authorities than it will from the local authorities. If it is the intention of the guide plan committee to remove uncertainty and injustice and to do forward planning, then I believe that they have a significant role to play. Sir, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister; Let us end this session on a nice note. Why not drop the offensive clauses so that we can agree to pass the rest of this Bill? If the hon. the Minister will not agree to eliminate these offensive clauses, we are obviously going to have to vote against this Bill.

Order! I have given further consideration to the word “Mafiosi”. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Sir, I humbly withdraw it and may I substitute the term “political opportunist”?

The hon. member for Walmer asked many questions and I want to be very honest with the hon. member now, by saying that I cannot reply to these questions. This calls to mind the saying: One fool can ask many questions, more questions than ten wise men can answer. One of the arguments advanced by the hon. member was that the autonomy of the provincial authorities was being forfeited in this process. They are very concerned about that, but I read in the two important sections in the Bill, section 6 and section 4, that the Minister, in carrying out his planning and compiling guide plans, has, subject to these sections, to consult the provincial authorities and, in the nature of the matter, local authorities as well. Consequently there is recognition of the local authorities, but what is also important is that there is also a National Physical Development Plan, an overall plan. It is essential for local authorities and provincial authorities to link up with the national plan. One cannot allow sectional planning in South Africa which cannot link up with an overall plan.

The hon. member, and the hon. members on the other side of the House, should realize just one thing, and that is that in the planning carried out by this Government there must be control and checks in regard to labour-intensive industries in large urban complexes. This is very important, not only for political reasons, but for social and economic reasons as well. One cannot allow labour-intensive industries to draw large quantities of unskilled labour to urban complexes, thus causing innumerable social and economic problems. This is simply meaningful planning by a responsible Government.

The hon. member must now get away from a general discussion.

I want to come back to a specific aspect of this Bill, viz. the particular position and the particular acknowledgement afforded the agricultural industry in South Africa by this Bill.

What industry?

The agricultural industry. We note that in terms of section 4 of this Bill the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Agriculture. Formerly, in terms of the Physical Planning Act, this was not so. We note, too, that in terms of section 6(a), the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the compiling of guide plans. This is an acknowledgement of the necessity for the agricultural industry in the planning carried out in South Africa, because land use has an enormous influence on agriculture in South Africa. I want to mention a few reasons for land use being so important. In the first instance, it is a fact that we in South Africa have only 15% arable land, of which 90% is already occupied, of which 3,3%, and not 4% as the hon. member for Hillbrow maintained, is high-potential agricultural land and has a production value of agricultural products of about 40%. The most important reason is the fact that the majority of our mining industries and mining activities, locality-bound industries, are also situated in a very large area of this high-potential agricultural land. Clearly this means that planning in South Africa is becoming more and more difficult. That, too, is why the Cabinet took a decision recently and the Minister made the announcement in Durban which I should like to quote to you (translation)—

1. (a) It is confirmed that the retention of good agricultural land is a matter of national interest.
2. (b) The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is requested to identify the good quality of agricultural land as a matter of priority.
3. (C) The department of Planning and the Environment, in co-operation with all other bodies concerned with the compiling of guide plans, is being instructed to give the highest priority to the retention of high-potential agricultural land in South Africa in all planning which is carried out.

This was stated by the Minister on 3 April in Durban during the conference of the habitat board. Mr. Speaker, I make special mention of the recognition afforded agriculture by this Act. This affects my constituency in particular. There the position is that one has to carry out planning where infrastructures must develop and where one has necessarily to consult the Department of Agriculture or the Minister at the highest level in order to effect sound planning so as to prevent unnecessary occupation of good high-potential agricultural land in South Africa, whereas there are perhaps areas of poorer agricultural land in the same region which can be used for this other development of infrastructure. Furthermore, it is the task of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to be of assistance to the Minister of Planning in regard to the compiling of these guide plans and the further planning undertaken so that planning may be carried out in such a way that there is no unnecessary occupation of this high potential land.

Mr. Speaker, initially I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I am somewhat disappointed that after having presented a very interesting and I think a very illuminating National Physical Development Plan, which there was an opportunity to debate during the hon. the Minister’s Vote under the budget Committee Stage, it should be found necessary to introduce a Bill without having given, not only some of the organizations or authorities that the hon. the Minister consulted but also the representatives of the people, the members of Parliament, the opportunity to study the significance of this Bill in greater depth and to give the benefit of their own experiences in various walks of life with regard to the best manner in which these particular plans could be implemented. I think that it is very important for us to know a little bit more about this particular Bill. Quite frankly I see, and I think many of my colleagues see, certain hidden dangers, certain rights which may be taken away from the public and also the invasion of the rights of the public generally. I think one should refer to the Plan itself to appreciate why I take this point of view, because on page 7 of the Plan in the fourth paragraph of the second column it says this:

I think that that is the most important aspect of this Bill to which I would like to draw attention. I want to say that after one has read this Plan and when one has had an opportunity to study the contents of the Bill, it seems to convey almost immediately a stamp of autocracy about it by its very wording.

Order!

The new provisions contained in the amendments to the original Bill creates a complete stranglehold on the entire development of the country. It does and will, if it goes through in this form, lay down the pattern of development the use of land, the provision of growth points and the provision of the infrastructure in this country for many years to come. After putting into operation a plan of nature envisaged by the Bill, it is not easy to change it. Examples of this are the various town planning schemes which have been in operation in cities for many years. This Bill is the first amending legislation to the Act since it was passed in 1967. In 1967 the Act was regarded as a piece of legislation which brought about the coercion of industry, and it was criticized as such. The type of comment that was made at the time that the Act was passed, was: “The key word of the Bill is compulsion.” We find that the following remarks were made in regard to the Bill: “The Minister may at his discretion …”, “The Minister may as he deems fit …” and “The Minister has unfettered powers”. These remarks were made in 1967. When one reads the amending Bill one is not left with a very much better impression than the legislators were left with at the time when the Act was passed through this House in 1967.

The original conception of planning and the proper use of land in the Republic as well as the development of our natural resources were incorporated in an Act of 1947. It took this Government, which came into power very shortly afterwards, a number of years to appreciate the importance of this type of legislation. Then, unfortunately, when it did begin to understand what it really meant and how it should be put into operation, the Government brought forward a Bill which was based mainly on ideological grounds. At that time it caused consternation and upheaval in industry with its resultant problems. These difficulties and these upheavals were both administrative and financial and they …

Order! The hon. member is arguing the original Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am passing through that as a part of the background to what I am going to say. I merely wanted to say that it contributed to the vast expenditure which today has become a financial encumbrance in the State budget. It still inhibits the expenditure of revenue for fruitful purposes. I may say that I have no objection, from an overall point of view, to this Bill as there are some good features about it, but we are concerned with the application of the details contained in it. I find some alarming features in this particular Bill. There are some unjust provisions for which no remedial security is provided. There are no remedial provisions which secure the citizen himself. Above all I sense, as I have said, the element of autocracy running right throughout the Bill almost as a theme. Provision is made, for instance, that the Minister will decide finally, without providing any relief beyond that very decree.

I shall deal with the detail in a moment. I want to refer to subsections (7) and (8) of the new section 6A. Here we find that provision is made for the establishment of the committee, for consultation with a number of organizations, and for a draft plan to be drawn up. That plan is then advertised for inspection and the public may make representations within a certain time. The representations are then considered by the Secretary of the department and then they are sent to the Administrator for his comments. The comments, objections or representations of the public are then sent to the hon. the Minister who makes a decision which is final. No provision is made for the very principle which is stated in the plan itself, viz. the vested interests and the existing rights of the public. No provision is made for appeal. There is no other authority to which the citizen can go in the event of his rights being seriously affected because he has no right of personal appearance before anybody. He cannot employ any legal aid to assist him in making his representations personally. His representations must be in writing. These are dealt with without any further consideration and the matter then receives the final approval or disapproval of the Minister. I think this is a very important fact.

Then we get paragraphs (b). (c) and (d) of the proposed new section 6A(10). These override the existing rights of townships. It is stated quite correctly, I think, that if there is a town planning scheme, no re-zoning can take place if such rezoning is in conflict with the overall guide plan. However, paragraph (c) stipulates not only that a person may not use his land in the guide plan area for a purpose other than the purpose for which it is zoned, also that he cannot use that land for any other purpose than the purpose for which it is being used on the date on which the final guide plan is published. This means that, if a person has certain rights in terms of the zoning provided in a town planning scheme but has not yet developed that land in terms of those rights, he is then prohibited from making use of that land in terms of the rights he acquired which he had not exercised to the full at the time when the guide plan was published. Furthermore, town planning schemes provide for consent uses in respect of certain properties. Land is zoned for a particular purpose but in certain circumstances a consent use can be given by the local authority, although not by the provincial authority which is charged with finally accepting or disapproving of a town planning scheme. Because it is of local concern, the consent use is given by the local authority which is the intermediate body. That particular right of a person would also be lost and, what is more, there is no question of compensation. Where then, is the principle of vested interests and existing rights taken into account? The unfortunate aspects is that in terms of the Bill all the individual can do is to follow again the interminable routine of permits, please to the Minister and the red tape of the departments before he reaches …

That has been said already.

Maybe it has, but this is my point of view.

It is your interpretation.

If this point had been made already, the Speaker would interrupt me. This measure will create anomalies, which are the breeding ground of inequity. It will also result in arbitrary decisions being taken. Thus, in my view, it interferes with the established rights of the citizen.

I think all these measures will result in a loss in that they inhibit normal expansion and development along established lines. Let me point to something else, which I think the hon. the Minister should explain. On page 9 of the National Physical Development Plan where the question of a regional approach is dealt with, it is stated that—

The only assurance I want from the hon. the Minister—and that is why I have gone to the trouble to explain this to him—is that he will accept established town planning schemes. In other words, if a guide plan does not interfere with an established scheme, one realizes that the citizen is being protected. I think that that is only right because otherwise the legislation virtually becomes legislation in retrospect. It means that an individual, having acquired something with full knowledge of what he is acquiring in terms of a valid town planning scheme, suddenly finds himself bereft of his particular rights because of a guide plan which in many senses I regard, because of his inability to make the fullest representations possible, as somewhat arbitrary. I do say that it is accepted legislative procedure, one can almost say a cardinal principle of legislation and of the common law, that you do not by legislation take away a man’s rights unless something serious is taking place in the country where people have to be protected against an eroding evil of some nature. But under normal conditions there is no reason why well-developed metropolitan areas should have rights, which exist in an established town planning scheme affected in any way by the guide plans. Therefore, when we deal with the clauses in the Committee Stage we will move amendments, if we are able to, with the objective of asking the hon. the Minister to entrench that particular reservation in the legislation.

Finally I would like to deal with clause 10. I regard the provisions of clause 10 as being very harsh indeed. The fact that a person can interfere in the private rights of individuals without a warrant and without producing some authority is going too far. All that is said is that such a person should be authorized by the hon. the Minister to carry out these activities. There is no provision for the individual affected by this to call upon him to produce his particular authority for the inspection. This is a rather harsh provision because the individual cannot protect himself against anyone who perhaps wants to do some harm to him or wants to interfere in his affairs to find out what is going on. The law must contain some form of protection for the individual and the most normal form of protection is that an investigating officer must immediately exhibit his authority. That is the least that can be done, even apart from the question of conducting an investigation without a warrant or authority issued in the normal way in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the best example I can give. I know that the hon. the Minister has given us his explanation, that the Attorney General will have to be satisfied with the method in which this will be done. This is not irrelevant because clause 3 is affected by clause 10. Clause 10 will enable the Attorney General to deal with a prosecution much more effectively in respect of a contravention of clause 3. He has already indicated that he is unable to do so with the type of evidence which is presently presented to him. I understand that is what the hon. the Minister made clear during the course of his Second Reading speech in the Other Place. This is not the best excuse in the world why the provision should be particularly harsh. If the evidence is required, there can be proper and normal methods employed to go on to a person’s premises to inspect his books, etc. Certain rules which have been laid down in other legislation and in the Criminal Procedure Act can he used to make it a much more reasonable legal method of handling the matter. I think this is a very important factor.

I want to conclude by saying that the point which bothers me is that this Bill overrides town planning schemes without providing some form of protection for the citizen. I believe that the question of control is tightened up to a very much greater extent than it has been in the past with regard to the pattern of control of development. I think some of the amendments which we intend moving will try to lessen that. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take these factors into account. I can assure him that if there had been time to go into this Bill in greater depth, numerous examples of a practical nature could have been provided to the House to satisfy the hon. the Minister that this Bill is going to do much more harm than he realizes and could, to a great extent, inhibit development and investment in land, though I do not want to go into detail about that. Generally it is not a good piece of legislation to place on our Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, before I commence speaking, I should like to compliment those people who have their hats on this evening. At least, it helps to keep their brains together. [Interjections.]

Order!

I hope I shall be free of the interruptions the previous speaker has had to put up with. I must say that I am not one of those who are very happy about this particular piece of legislation. We in Natal, for instance, are very disturbed about what we consider the usurping of the powers of the Natal Regional Planning Commission. I know that in the Other Place the hon. the Minister gave an assurance that it was not the intention to usurp the powers of the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. I am not happy, however, at the way the provinces are being represented on this guide plan committee. The new section 6A refers to the representatives on the guide plan committee and says they shall be appointed to represent, amongst others, any provincial administration concerned. We would be much happier to know that this guide plan committee will be representative of the provincial administration concerned. I know it brings in a discordant note but we have heard of political appointees before. This sort of committee could end up eventually, after consideration or consultation with the two Ministers and the Administrator of the province, with appointees who have no interest at all in conservation and planning. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us a definite assurance that when these members are appointed to this committee, they will be representative of that particular provincial administration. Another thing that upsets us in this particular Bill is the new section 6B. We know that it is not always possible beforehand to realize where deposits of clay are situated, for instance, or where there is suitable gravel or sand for certain operations. The specific ground, too, may perhaps not be reserved, zoned or controlled. A need arises for that land and a permit can then be applied for. The hon. the Minister—I presume after consultation with his Administrators, officials and relevant Ministers, and after consultation with the Minister of Mines, as is stated here—can issue the permit. I still want to say that the Minister of Mines is not in the least bit interested in preserving the ecology or the environment. The only thing he is interested in is to get his minerals mined. There should be provision for representation on that committee of people who are interested in the ecology and who will examine applications for such permits with a view to ensuring that the ecology is not damaged and that the environment is preserved, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will assure us that steps will be taken to see that these people are represented on the committee. Sir, in this respect I feel that this measure does not go far enough. It does not lay down the guide-lines for issuing such permits. I would like to see this Act go very much further. Sir, may I refer briefly to the Act which was passed by the United States Congress this very year for this same purpose. This Act, which is called the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, has four very important provisions. Firstly, it provides that it shall be incumbent on the operator who applies for a permit to mine for minerals or a quarry or brickworks or clay pit, to restore the surface of that particular area to the previous contours when he has finished. In other words, if it was high ground, it must be restored to high ground and not left as a hole in the ground or as a scar on the hillside when he is finished. The area must be restored by him to its previous contours. They also insist that he restore the surface to the condition in which he found it, capable of supporting the previous usage. If that ground supported grass or trees before, it is incumbent upon that operator to restore that surface to that particular condition when he has finished. The operator is also responsible for revegetating that surface. He must replant whatever was there before he started his operations. That is the first aim of that Act, and I feel that the hon. the Minister should also establish it as the aim of this particular measure.

The second important provision of the American Act is that the operators who stand to profit from working deposits in an area must pay a levy into a fund out of their working profits. This fund will be used to restore the surface of the area to its previous condition. Everybody who benefits by operations which undermine the environment has to contribute to this fund.

The third aim, which is not provided for in this Bill, is to provide compensation. Under the American law anybody who feels adversely affected by these operations is entitled to sue the Government, or to sue the operator, or to sue the authority who gave permission for this work. This is a right which should be inherent in this type of guide planning. I can think of guide plans which have adversely affected people whose ground is not directly affected by the guide plans. People who are contiguous to such an area can be affected by a contour that has been changed, or by a watershed which now diverts their rainfall on to other ground. Sir, these people are affected and they get no compensation at all. Under the American Act they are allowed to claim compensation from the Government or from the particular authority which approved of the guide plan.

The fourth very important provision of the American Act is that no permits will be issued where it is likely that potential or existing farming or ranching activities will be damaged. In other words, if it is considered that a mine or a working will damage farming or ranching rights, that permit will not be issued except in a national emergency. It is only in the event of a national emergency that a permit will be issued. It will not be issued for a road, for example, unless it is a strategic road. Sir, I feel that we have not gone far enough in conserving our farming ground and ground on which we can grow food or ground which we can use for ranching. This Bill does not entrench those things at all.

In regard to the last clause on which I wish to speak, clause 10, I do not think it was necessary at all to insert this clause in a Bill such as this with such advanced ideas and ideals. This Bill gives Gestapo-like powers to officials of the hon. the Minister’s department. I do not think that this is necessary. After all, Sir, the Department of Labour has inspectors who also visit premises and look into people’s books and businesses, and they have not asked for these powers at any time. I do not see why this particular department requires these powers and why it was necessary for these stiff penalties to be provided for. By imposing these penalties, which I consider to be ridiculous, you are turning industrialists into criminals. It has been suggested here this evening that this clause is being brought in to force industrialists not to come to areas which are densely populated, in other words to urban areas, but to go into border areas. Sir, nothing has really been said about the existing industrialist who wishes to expand. This is the person who is most vitally affected by this legislation. As I know from personal experience, a business that does not grow will die; it must expand. You must get more staff, and you cannot get more staff under the Physical Planning Act.

You can. That is not true.

In the type of business of which I am thinking you can only use a Bantu for a certain operation in your business. This Bantu has to be brought from another province, and you cannot get a permit to engage more of these men. In this way you are precluded from expanding. Sir, these Bantu resort to all sorts of subterfuges to get people to employ them. You are turning them into criminals, and if you are not doing that, then you are encouraging their opposition to go along and report them to the inspector because they are employing more men than they are entitled to employ. Sir, this is quite ridiculous.

You are totally misinformed.

For these reasons, Sir, we would like the hon. the Minister to consider our amendments. We certainly cannot vote for this Bill as long as it contains this particular clause.

Sir, it seems to me we are not going to have any further reaction from hon. members on that side of the House. They are either dumbfounded or in a hurry to go home and do not care two hoots what kind of legislation, good or bad, is piloted through this House tonight. All they are going to do is to sit there and say nothing further.

The hon. member for Pretoria East told us this afternoon that he is very glad about this legislation, because this legislation has a message for him, and that message is the totality of planning. He said that planning used to be ad hoc. He was so pleased about this legislation as the guide plans were now going to serve as the framework for planning. Sir, I want to tell that hon. member that there was planning long before this legislation, which is being amended this evening, was placed on the Statute Book. There was planning in every province, and I know that there was planning in the Cape Province over the past 50 years, or perhaps even longer.

But what kind of planning?

The planning was done by the provincial administrations and it was done very well, because the provincial administrations knew what they were dealing with. To come and tell us here tonight that we did not know how to plan in the past, is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard this session.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke was very pleased that this legislation was giving teeth to the Department of Planing. I do not know whether these are teeth with which to bite someone, but I do not feel like being bitten by the Department of Planning and I am sure that the people of the Cape Province do not want to be bitten by the Department of Planning either. The people of the Cape Province are quite satisfied with their provincial planning system and it seems to me quite unnecessary to give the Department of Planning teeth as far as actual physical planning in the Cape Province is concerned. The hon. member said that the reason for giving the department teeth, is to implement the policy of decentralization of the Nationalist Party. The department has had these teeth for many years, for it has the right to say that it does not want any further factories in any province and that those which already exist may not be expanded. Why does the department now want further teeth?

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also said that the regional development associations are the people who are going to do the planning, and that they are going to tell the guide plan draftsmen how the guide plans should be drawn up. How can one plan in this way? When one plans, one does so, in the first place, on the local level. One asks the local authority how the planning ought to be done. The local authority is in contact with the local inhabitants. The local authority tells the province how it wishes to plan and after that the province will consider the proposals and will perhaps say that it does not like a certain specific condition or provision. In due course, after deliberation between these two parties, a plan will eventually be formulated which will satisfy everyone. Why is it necessary for the Department of Planning to draw Up a guide plan to look after the interests of the local authority?

I come now to the hon. member for Pretoria West, who said that we should involve the citizens in planning. I do not know what the hon. member for Pretoria West was referring to. It seems to me the hon. member for Pretoria West does not know how planning takes place and how the planning of the whole of the Republic of South Africa took place over the past 50 years. He wants to involve the citizens, but I have already said that it is not necessary to have a further condition or provision to involve the citizens. The citizens have been involved in the planning which has been carried out by the local authorities for the past 50 years. Why should there be further involvement? I simply cannot understand this. The hon. member also stated that the Cabinet should have a say in the planning. Why should the Cabinet have a say in the planning of, for example, Schweizer-Reneke, Pretoria and Bethal? It is not necessary.

Or of Wynberg.

Or of Wynberg. There are town councils and divisional councils which can do this, and they are doing this very well. This is one matter the hon. the Minister of Defence knows nothing about, and I think he should keep quiet. He should keep quiet otherwise he will get it in the neck tonight.

Wynberg simply nominates a candidate without an executive.

It seems to me this is the only story the hon. the Minister of Defence knows. I would advise him to learn another story which he will be able to tell during next year’s session when I am speaking. [Interjections.] It is like an old gramophone record … [Interjections.] … which keeps on and on. I am sick and tired of the hon. the Minister of Defence and his remarks now. [Interjections.] He is the Leader of the House and he ought to set an example.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I shall come back to the Bill as soon as the hon. the Leader of the House keeps quiet. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to come back to the Bill.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Bethal. The hon. member said that the Minister should be consulted in regard to overall planning. If it is strategic or tactical planning, I can appreciate the fact that there will most probably have to a master tactical or strategic plan for the whole of the Republic. I can see quite clearly that there ought to be a plan of this nature. I do not know why such a plan was not drawn up years ago. If the hon. the Minister of Planning does not have such a plan yet, I maintain that he did not do his work properly. He should pull up his socks and see to it that such planning is done. However, to say that the hon. the Minister of Planning should now stick his nose into the planning of every province and the planning of every region, seems to me to be completely nonsensical.

The hon. member for Bethal went further and said that we should not allow sectional planning. What is sectional planning? Have hon. members ever heard of such a thing as “sectional planning”? It seems to me as if the hon. member did not know what he was talking about. After all, sectional planning should either concern certain sectors of the country or certain ethnic units or certain people or perhaps men and women; I do not know. In any case, the hon. the Minister of Planning has nothing to do with this matter. This is a matter which falls under the provincial councils and the local authorities. They are the people who have to do this work.

Then we also have the case of land utilization. Perhaps the hon. member for Bethal has a point in regard to land utilization when he says that there should be overall planning in this regard. I concede that he might have a point there. However, that is all I shall concede as far as the speech made by the hon. member for Bethal is concerned.

†Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. the Minister of Defence believes that I have not had my breakfast, because he has very kindly sent me a piece of biltong. [Interjections.]

There are one or two hon. members I have not dealt with yet. One of them is the hon. member for Bryanston. It was quite clear to me that the hon. member for Bryanston, although he is a very active member of this Chamber, did not on this occasion bother to read the Bill upon which he made his speech.

He knows more about planning than you do.

He made the most astounding discovery, which I think would also rock the hon. member for Carletonville. He made the discovery that local authorities in the Republic of South Africa have no background of planning. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such arrant nonsense? It is quite obvious that the hon. member does not know what planning, means.

I said there were some small local authorities … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, they have been busy with planning for the last 50 years and longer. They know the inside and the outside of planning, and yet the hon. member for Bryanston says that they have no background of planning.

As usual, you did not listen …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must contain himself.

The hon. member for Bryanston went on to say that planning was a somewhat recent matter. As I have already pointed out, planning has been dealt with by local authorities for a period of 50 years and longer. How can it be “somewhat recent”? I think the sort of planning the hon. member for Bryanston had in mind was the sort of planning that went into his great plan to hijack the United Party. That is the sort of planning to which he was referring, and that is of course of recent origin. Fortunately that plan also failed. If the hon. member for Bryanston represented his party’s point of view this evening, he obviously demonstrated to everyone in each province that neither he nor his party give a fig for any Provincial Administration or any local authority in the Republic of South Africa. I believe that the Provincial Administrations and the local authorities of the Republic of South Africa should take note of this point of view of the Reform Party with regard to planning.

What I am quite alarmed at is the fact that the hon. member for Bryanston, representing the Reform Party, and the hon. member for Orange Grove, representing the Progressive Party, both approve of clause 6. I believe that they approve of clause 6 because they have not troubled to find out that, in fact, the rule of law is not observed in clause 6. As we all know, those are two parties which, whenever their members make a speech, cannot bear to make that speech without referring to the rule of law at least half a dozen times. What has gone wrong with their deliberations on this occasion I do not know. It seems to me that the impending marriage has become too much for them.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point I am making is that the members of the Progressive and Reform Parties have not applied their minds to clause 6, because if they had, they would have realized that the rule of law is flouted entirely in clause 6, because of the reasons already stated and which I do not want to repeat since you, Mr. Speaker, will then tell me that I am repeating arguments already made.

I shall therefore proceed to deal with what I believe to be the most serious allegations that can be made against the Bill.

Allegations against a Bill?

I believe this Bill is going to kill all incentive in planning in the Cape Province. I do not know about the other provinces, but I do know something about the Cape Province.

That is all you know.

The hon. member for Carletonville agrees with me and therefore I have at least one supporter on the other side. [Interjections], I also believe that the Bill is going to be one of the greatest hang-ups of the Nationalist Party, particularly in so far as the Cape Province is concerned and I hope that the Leader of the National Party in the Cape Province is taking note. If I were to be the Minister of Planning and I were to be given the blank cheque that this draft Bill gives the hon. the Minister, then I would look for instance at the Constantia area and as Minister of Planning I would say to myself: “Do you know what I can do? I can go and re-zone the whole of the Constantia area including Groot Constantia where that magnificent wine comes from and all the other farms roundabout and, in fact, all the farms right up to Tokai and wherever there is farming activity. I can rezone them in terms of a guide plan and I can say to those farmers that they shall never do anything else but farm”. I would be able to say that to them, because I would be in a position to prevent them from ever selling their farms and furthermore, I would also be in a position to say to them: “I am not going to pay you any compensation”. This is what this Bill empowers the hon. the Minister to do. How can we allow a Bill of such a nature to be enacted? What are the people of Constantia going to say to us if we allow a Bill such as this to go through?

I want to take this a step further. Since I have referred to a wine area, I want to deal with the position in Paarl. Let us transport ourselves to Paarl, that magnificent Paarl Valley with all those beautiful farms in the municipal area. Do you know that there are 90 farms producing wine or grapes in the Paarl municipal area? Do you know what the Paarl municipality intends doing? It has been trying now for the last five years to freeze the development of those farms so that they will always remain farms and will never be used for anything else. Do hon. members know what the hon. the Minister is going to say? He will say that he is going to write a letter. The moment this Bill is passed he will write a letter to the Mayor of Paarl in which he will say something like:

Mr. Mayor, I shall now grant you your dearest wish of the last five years …

He will then tell the Mayor that he will sit at his desk in Pretoria and write out an order to the guide plan committee to draw up a guide plan for Paarl which in turn will provide that all the farms in Paarl will remain farms for ever. Then he will probably add …

… and it will not cost you a penny, Mr. Mayor, not one penny!

No, a cent.

I am sorry. He will say that it will not cost him a cent. That is the sort of power we are going to give to the Minister. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister realizes what powers we are going to give him when we pass this legislation. We are giving him a complete blank cheque. He is simply going to do as he pleases. I find it difficult to believe this because I see the hon. the Minister every day and to me he does not look like an empire builder. Nevertheless I have come to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister is an empire builder. He wants to build an empire and this is the way in which he is going to do it. Just think of all the other towns in the Republic of South Africa where the hon. the Minister will now have a say. There will certainly not be a pie in the whole country in which the hon. the Minister will not have a finger. Just imagine what an empire he is going to build up. Do hon. members know what will happen? Next year in the budget debate he will tell the hon. the Minister of Finance: My department is not big enough. You will have to treble the amount for my department because of all the guide plan committees I have going. He will tell the Minister of Finance: I am running the whole show and therefore you will have to treble the amount that is to be allocated to my Department.

And put up his salary.

Yes, and the Minister will have more than enough to do. I wonder whether that is not the real reason why the hon. the Minister wants to build this empire. He wants to have something to do. Although I should like to help the hon. the Minister and see to it that he does have something to do, I do believe that he has to be careful about empire building. I shall have a lot more to say in the Committee Stage of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, I have no knowledge of the Constantia valley or of Paarl.

Hear, hear!

Before my hon. friends opposite say “Hear, hear” too loudly I have a knowledge of Natal. It is my intention to speak about Natal this evening and I want to speak about what this Parliament is being asked to do to that province. [Interjections.] If my hon. friend for Bryanston will listen for a moment, I want to refer to something which happened many years before he was born. The person involved in this occurrence was once an hon. member of this House. I am referring to the erstwhile member for South Coast, Mr. Douglas Mitchell. He was a member of the Executive Committee of Natal and he was charged with the task of doing something about the planning of Natal. I want to pay tribute to him tonight because I believe that it is because of the foresight of that grand old man of South Africa that Natal today sets an example to the rest of the Republic and in fact to the rest of the world as far as planning is concerned. Because of the foresight of Mr. Douglas Mitchell we have in Natal today something which is the envy of that hon. Minister and the whole Cabinet which sits On the other side of the House. That is the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. Tonight we are being asked to toll the death knell of that Town and Regional Planning Commission. That is what this hon. Minister is asking us to do tonight. He is asking us tonight to sweep the feet out from under those hon. gentlemen who over the years have served not only Natal but the Republic of South Africa as well in their planning of the Province of Natal and its resources for the benefit of the whole of South Africa. I want to start by quoting from …

They built their own little empire.

That hon. member who comes from Newcastle in Natal, need not show his jealousy here tonight. He is jealous that he has never once associated himself with this organization which has not only put Natal but the whole of South Africa on the map. [Interjections.] I want to say that it has all been done by Natal under a United Party Administrator and without any assistance from the Nationalist Government. I want to quote from a report of the Town and Regional Planning Commission, No. 21, entitled “Town and Regional Planning in Natal”:

It was foreseen many years ago that a key factor in future industrial development would be the availability of ample supplies of water. Water and labour were seen as the key to Natal’s industrial development. The task of bringing imaginative planning with practical considerations to bear on the future urban and industrial growth of Natal was laid on the shoulders of the Town and Regional Planning Commission. Judged by results, it must be admitted that the commission has done a magnificent service for Natal and for South Africa of which the province is an integral part. The commission from the start and consistently throughout has applied a steady, sober and practical standard to its planning. Its report on the development of the Tugela Basin is recognized as a handbook for regional planning throughout the world. I believe Natal has every reason to be proud of the commission, its staff and the work they have done and continue to do. I add my own word of praise for their achievements and sincere good wishes for the vast task that lies ahead of them in the light of the rapid industrialization now taking place in Natal.

Mr. Speaker, that was signed by Mr. Douglas E. Mitchell.

What are we faced with here tonight? We are faced with the situation, a situation that was not foreseen by my friend from Bryanston or my friend of the Progressive Party, that …

Are they friends of yours?

They are funny friends, but that is all right. It was not foreseen by them that the intention of the legislation before the House tonight is to take away from Natal that Town and Regional Planning Commission, to remove entirely the control of a body which has brought credit not only to Natal but to the whole of the Republic of South Africa. When I say that that commission has brought credit, I say it because I believe that that credit has been acknowledged by the Nationalist Government, but in their jealousy they are unable to leave them untouched. They have got to interfere and to take away from Natal the credit for this organization.

The Government acknowledges that they are experts in their own sphere. I refer to the latest annual report of the Department of Planning and the Environment. On page 5 of that report, paragraph 30, we read:

I want to say that this is arrant nonsense on the part of the Nationalist Government. Since when do they take over, and since when does the Minister decide whether to release a report of our Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission, a commission which was established in terms of a provincial ordinance in 1949? This Government is trying desperately to take it over. The same paragraph goes on:

I want to draw attention to this particularly—

If the hon. the Minster believes that he and his department are capable of doing the planning, why do they use the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission? I refer further to page 13 of the report. Paragraph 63 reads as follows:

I want to say that even the department has acknowledged the ability of the commission to do the work that is necessary. Yet here we have a Bill before us in terms of clause 6 of which the hon. the Minister now wants to establish what he calls guide plan committees.

I have with me a stack of publications. I am not going to read them all. I am only going to read only their titles. The first is Volume 24—“Pietermaritzburg-Durban Region, Regional Guide Plan”. What does he want to establish a guide plan committee for? He has a guide plan, the best he will be able to get. Another one is “The Natal South Coast—Draft Regional Plan,” drawn up by the Natal Town and Planning Commission. What does he want a guide plan committee for? Then there is the metropolitan Durban draft guide plan by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. Others are: “The Natal Coast—Beach designation Proposals; Upper Umgeni River Catchment; Medium Density Housing,” etc. You name it, the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission has done it. It is entirely unnecessary for this hon. Minister to try to take over what Natal has done. The hon. the Minister should learn from the lesson which Natal has taught him and which Natal has taught the Republic of South Africa. Instead of asking us this evening to allow the hon. the Minister to take over the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission, which is his intention in terms of clause 6, he should have come with a Bill to enable him to compel the other three provinces to comply with what Natal has done, to follow the good example of what Natal has done. That is what I believe he should be doing instead of trying in some way to usurp the functions of the provinces. The hon. members for Orange Grove and Bryanston this evening said they would support all the clauses of this Bill except clause 10. They have repeatedly referred to the federal aspects of their policy, but where is federation in allowing the centralization of planning? We believe that the function of planning lies at the local level. We believe that it is the local authorities—unlike the hon. member for Bryanston, who does not believe this—and the provincial councils have the local knowledge necessary to carry out the planning function which is required for the planning of South Africa and not the central Government.

We spoke about an overall plan.

That hon. member must stop getting hysterical; we are tired of his hysterics. I do not believe that those members have been true to any federal concept which they may have in their policy. I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. He said, and I quote from his Senate Hansard, col. 1733 of 15 April 1975—

The hon. the Minister said “with their cooperation and not to take over their planning functions”. What is he doing in terms of clause 6? In terms of the Natal Town and Regional Planning Ordinance the commission has the power to draft guide plans, which it has done. I have given some examples of them this evening. Those draft guide plans are approved by the provincial authorities in consultation with the local authorities concerned. As I said, we believe that that is where the knowledge lies and where this function should lie. The hon. the Minister said that he would not take away their planning functions, but I want to ask him whether when he next asks the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission to undertake a survey, he allow the provincial administration, the Administrator of Natal in Executive Committee, to decide whether he will accept that plan. Will he allow them to do that? The hon. the Minister does not reply, and do you know, Sir, why he does not reply? Because his answer is in the negative. He will not allow them to decide. In terms of clause 6 he can use the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission as his guide plan committee, and he possibly will, because they are the best authority in the country to do so. If he does not, we will understand why. But having used them to draw up his draft guide plan what does he do to the province of Natal? He takes away from them any rights whatsoever to even have a look at the report which is drawn up by their commission. He takes the report and submits it to the Secretary of his department who then refers it to the administrator for his comments. Who makes the final decision? That hon. Minister does. Whether the Administrator and the Executive Committee of Natal agree with him or not, he makes the decision. I do not have to repeat all the arguments that have been raised here this evening. I intend now, in the space of two minutes, simply to summarize the objections which we, the United Party, the official Opposition, have to this particular Bill. I have referred to the erosion of provincial powers. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. That, however, is exactly what that hon. Minister is trying to do tonight. Instead of telling the other three provinces to conform to the example which has been set by Natal, he makes Natal conform to the other three Nationalist provinces. It is completely wrong to try to make two wrongs equal a right. There is no recognition of the authority of the provinces and that of their local authorities. I am referring to the new section 6A(2). There is no recognition of existing town planning schemes. That point was ably made by my friends, the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Jeppe. There is no recognition of the existing rights of individuals. There is no provision for compensation anywhere either. There is no provision in this measure at all stating that the guide plan committee, in drawing up a guide plan for a region, shall take cognizance of the present zoning of properties. There is no provision for that at all. It is no good telling me that because it is not there they had to do so. I believe it is essential that that should be included, otherwise we find that people’s rights are taken away. As I have said, my friend, the hon. member for Jeppe, has pointed out that when those rights are taken away there is not even any provision for the people concerned to get compensation. There is no provision for appeal. In any town planning scheme anywhere in the world an aggrieved party has the right of appeal, except under the town planning scheme introduced by this Nationalist Government under that Minister. This shows the arrogance of this Nationalist Government.

Mr. T. ARONSON Emasculator.

I believe that in clause 10 there is an invasion of the privacy of people. There is provision there for industrial sabotage and industrial spying. I believe it is wrong for the hon. the Minister to ask for powers to seize books and documents, thereby crippling an industrialist. I think I have now said enough. [Interjections.] However, we are implacably opposed to the principles which are contained in this Bill, not only to the provisions of clause 10 which those hon. members to my left seem to oppose. They seem to forget about the iniquitous measures in clause 11. We are entirely opposed to the principle contained in clause 6 of this Bill whereby this Minister will completely emasculate and take away the powers of the Natal Provincial Administration in respect of that body of which they are so proud, the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission.

Mr. Speaker,: when I was approached by a deputation asking me, on the unanimous decision of the chairman of our planning group, to sum up this debate, I was very happy to accept the honour on condition that I was allowed the customary hour in which to do so. Instead I find a Whip next to me. He has two notes. The one says “:Zero minutes” and the other says “: Shut-up”. I want to make one point, and I make it in all seriousness. I shall start with the penultimate clause which changes the title of the Act. Tribute was paid by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to Mr. Douglas Mitchell. I think that a great tribute to Mr. Douglas Mitchell is the fact that the name of the Act we are amending is being changed from the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act to the Environment Planning Act. The Government has always thought in terms of using things, of controlling things. We have thought in terms of the broader concept of environment, and we and Mr. Mitchell pleaded for a Department of the Environment. We hammered and hammered, until eventually we got a hon. semi-Minister of Environment, and now we have an Environment Planning Act and his change of title is a tribute to Mr. Douglas Mitchell and to this side of the House which brought it about.

In the three minutes left to me, I have seven matters of importance to raise. The first is in clause 10, where under the new section 9A(l)(d) an inspector is empowered—and this is the key point—

What would happen if it was a male inspector who finds a female worker on the premises and in his own discretion, alone as he thinks fit, in whatever way he thinks is fit, and in respect to any matter, questions that female person? I demand that the hon. the Minister of Planning, in this the Year of the Woman, should give protection to the woman. I think that the least Parliament should do is to remove the words “alone, at his own discretion, as he thinks fit, be entitled to question her”. [Interjections.] In the same clause it says “at any time during the day”. But nowhere is “day” defined. A day consists of 24 hours, so it could be at night, because it is part of a day, and there are 31 days in a month. Nowhere is day defined as between sunrise and sunset or between dawn and dusk. Therefore the questioning of a female alone, can take place after dusk. In clause 8, we have the right of the hon. the Minister to open a quarry. Does the hon. the Minister not know of the Sir John Cradock proclamation, which gives the Cape power to take any farmer’s land and to dig up all his land if they want it as a quarry, or a sandpit, a quarry, a gravel-pit or a play-pit. The hon. the Minister is here interfering with the proclamation of Sir John Cradock, which no farmer wants and which no farmer likes. Here the hon. the Minister is overriding that provision. The last point is one in respect of which I would like to appeal to the hon. the Leader of the House. In clause 6 it refers to advertisements to be published in an English or in an Afrikaans newspapers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he will give the assurance that he will exclude Die Afrikaner as an Afrikaans newspaper. [Interjections.] I hope that the hon. the Leader of the House, as a newspaper director, has got the message as I have got it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank those hon. members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate, for their contributions. Some of them were of a particularly high standard and I enjoyed listening to them. Just in passing, I wish to remark on the fact that it has been said that we came forward with this measure at the very end of the session. It is true that the point was not seriously made, but I wish to point out that this measure was submitted to Parliament on 15 April, or are hon. members not of the opinion that the Other Place also forms part of Parliament? In other words, there is not the slightest doubt that this measure was brought to Parliament at a sufficient early stage. Is it now being argued that because this measure is the last to come before the House, it is not important? What, then, of all the financial measures which are the very last measures to come before the Other Place in every session, year in and year out? Are they unimportant for that reason?

Something has to be last.

Some measure has to be the last, and it so happens that for very good reasons, the work was arranged in such a way that this House could deal with this measure at the end of the session while the Other House was concerned with the ordinary financial measures at the end of the session. I just mention this in passing.

I want to thank hon. members for their support. I even want to thank the hon. members of the Opposition for the degree of support I received from them. I must say that towards the end I became very confused when those hon. members started to state what they supported and what they did not support. After having listened to the last few speakers, I gained the impression that the official Opposition rejected the measure in its entirety.

Hear, hear!

Now there are some of them who say, “Hear, hear!” The hon. member for Hillbrow can correct me at the Committee Stage if I interpreted his words incorrectly, but after he spoke I was under the impression that he welcomed as a sound principle the question of land being reserved for the purposes of an infrastructure and the consequent elimination of speculation. Later, however, that standpoint was rejected by other members opposite. Then, too, there was the question of stone-crushing plants in the country, which has caused us so much difficulty in the past. Provision is now being made for the designation of certain areas where this can only be done once a permit has been issued, and I gained the impression that that principle was accepted by the official Opposition and that they were satisfied with it, but having listened to the last few speakers and the “hear, hears”, I really do not understand the position. I think those hon. members are right off the track. Furthermore, some of them apparently do not know what the Bill is about.

Then, too, there was the question of the compiling of guide plans. In this regard, too, we heard that this was a good step and that we were dealing here with the land of South Africa which should be utilized in the best possible way, but in the last part of the discussion, all we heard from the Opposition was one condemnation after the other in regard to this matter. I now ask: Where do we stand with the Opposition in regard to these matters this evening? They tried to make political capital out of the Reformists. However, I want to tell them that of all the political capital they tried to make during this session, that which they tried to make this evening in this connection, was the weakest I have yet heard. I want to tell them that I thought this afternoon that the hon. member for Bryanston made a good speech. I think he knows more about this matter than some of the hon. members opposite. Nevertheless, their intention this evening was, purely and simply, to make political capital out of this. In my opinion, they chose a bad time to do so, and the arguments with which they tried to prove their point, were weak ones.

There was one point in regard to which the official Opposition and the other opposition parties were at total variance with us. All of them said that they differed with us in that regard. This was in regard to clause 10, which, now gives teeth to section 3 of the Act. In this regard I want to point out that the hon. member for Bryanston was correct. This inspection we are introducing is not only an inspection to investigate section 3 cases. It is an inspection to investigate the whole Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. Everything the Act provides and lays down has to be investigated. The hon. members on the other side do not know this and have never realized it.

This amendment states specifically that it concerns sections 2, 3 and 8, of the principal Act. Nothing else is mentioned.

Section 2 of the principal Act deals with the zoning of industrial land, section 3 deals with the awarding of land to Bantu and section 8 deals with the permits issued in regard to certain uses. It includes the zoning of natural areas. We must be able to go and see whether those provisions are not being contravened. The inspectors can therefore be sent there, too. The hon. members simply expressed their condemnation blindly and tried to score political points on the basis of the inspection under section 3 of the principal Act, but they bluffed no one who knew anything about the matter; in fact, by doing so they only displayed their own ignorance. Where we differ is in regard to the inspection under the penal provision, the teeth given to section 3 by this legislation. As far as this matter is concerned, we are at variance with all the Opposition parties opposite.

I want to say to the hon. member for Walmer that I appreciated all the speeches which preceded his speech, including the speeches by the hon. member for Hillbrow and the other hon. members who took part. They displayed a responsible and positive approach in regard to an important matter. The hon. member for Walmer was the first hon. member who, in my opinion, started using strong language. He said, “It is an act of economic lunacy.” Referring to the new short title of the Bill, he said, “It should be called the Persecution and Conviction of the Industrialists Act.” Those were the hon. member’s words. I want to ask him whether there is one single industrialist in Port Elizabeth who is dissatisfied. I have before me letters written to me by the industrialists and the Chamber of Industries of Port Elizabeth in which they state that they are more than satisfied with the action taken by me and with this legislation. However, the hon. member states that it is legislation which is aimed at prosecuting the industrialist in South Africa. Where does he get that? Not a single industrialist in Port Elizabeth endorses the hon. member’s opinion. There is not a single industrialist in Port Elizabeth who has been prosecuted or whose activities have been curtailed. Not a single industrialist has been prevented from expanding, not one!

They were unable to.

The hon. member states that they were unable to. I say to him that I granted them the permits, as the applications came in, without any of them being turned down. I know what I am talking about Nevertheless, the hon. member makes these allegations.

What did the hon. member for South Coast speak about? He also spoke about the industrialists, but this Act does not apply to Natal. Section 3 does not apply in any part of Natal. What did the hon. member speak about? He spoke about “Bantu coming from another province”.

†Just imagine coming from another province! From which province, may I ask? From which province which the Act controls are Bantu coming to Natal? Of course, the hon. member was talking complete nonsense. He did not know what he was talking about.

The hon. member for Jeppe also had something to say. He said it was a pity that there was not enough opportunity to study this Bill in greater depth.

*What more do hon. members want? The Bill has been lying on the hon. member’s desk since the legislation was passed by the Senate on 15 April, viz. two months ago. Despite this, he has not had time to study the Bill in greater depth. He said so not only once, but twice. At the end of his speech he repeated, “Had there only been time for a more thorough study of the Bill…”

He is a thorough man. [Interjections.]

He had the legislation at his disposal for two months. Now he states that he was unable to make a thorough study of the Act. Nor does that surprise me.

†Really, I am not surprised that the hon. member does not know what is in the Bill. He has told me time and again—he built up his whole speech around it—that there are elements of hypocrisy running right through the Bill and asked that vested interests and existing rights should be safeguarded. The position is, and it says, very clearly to my mind; “… no town planning scheme which is binding …” Where do you get your rights from? You get your rights from a town planning scheme. I quote again—

I said that that was in order.

It may be amended, but you do not lose the rights that you have under the town planning scheme. Nobody loses his rights, but the hon. member made a big point of it, and he cannot deny it now, that people would lose their vested interests and their existing rights Without compensation. Time and again he stressed “without compensation”. He said that it was an unfair Bill and the work of a lot of hypocrites. They do not lose their rights or their vested interest; nobody loses any rights. One can also read the next clause—

If one has a right in terms of a town planning scheme, you can use that right, but you cannot use it for another right, or for a purpose other than the purpose stated when this scheme came into being. That is when there is no town planning scheme. But in this guide plan area, if there is a town planning scheme, it is absolutely clear that the rights you have under the town planning scheme you will retain; nobody can take them away from you. Outside the area of town planning schemes in the wider guide plan area, one only retains the right one had at the time when the guide plan came into operation, until such time as new town planning schemes are instituted for that area, which may not differ from the overall stipulations of the guide plan.

I do not agree with your interpretation.

It is very clear; there is no doubt about it, but we can talk about it again.

*Everyone was at variance in regard to this section 3, and so on. I shall not discuss decentralization, because that has been discussed, but just in passing I want to state in this regard—and I should like to say this evening, that the prosperity and happiness of everyone in South Africa, and their future—I am therefore not referring to Whites only—and the preservation of South Africa depends, in my view, on the successful implementation of the policy of decentralization in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I wonder whether hon. members realize how much the Government has already done in this regard. Let me mention as an example the development of the Bantu areas in my constituency, the development in the agricultural sphere, in the sphere of the infrastructure, in the tertiary sphere. There, and elsewhere in our country, the impetus of industrial decentralization falls short of the mark. We are not apologizing. This is a point of difference between that side of the House and ourselves, and we accept that we differ on that score. We believe that one should use section 3 of the Act, because it constitutes an important element in our policy of industrial decentralization. We are now making it enforceable, we are giving it teeth. We are not establishing an inspectorate. We can discuss that at the Committee Stage. We are not going to put a number of people on the road who will be in and out of the factories investigating people. We only go when we have good reason to do so. When that is the case, the Secretary will write a letter to one of his officials and that official will go to a specific undertaking. He will say “My name is Piet Prinsloo. Here is my letter and here is my identity card. May I inspect your books and may I be informed as to how many Bantu you have? Do you want to tell me?” The official will then make the necessary inquiries and obtain the necessary information which he requires. We can argue this point at the Committee Stage. This is what we are doing now. I should like to say this evening that in the past, the implementation of the Act was not easy. That is why we came to this Parliament with the Amendment Bill. We implemented the Act with leniency and very often we gave people permission to employ Bantu. However, despite this, we have succeeded in achieving a great deal, but this is a matter which I may not discuss now. However, we know that in the controlled areas, and in the PWV area in particular, there are industrialists who are employing Bantu whom they may not employ in terms of the existing law of the land.

How else are they to carry on?

In the PWV area there are a number of industrialists who do not employ a single Bantu illegally. How do they carry on? There are innumerable industrialists who have applied to us and obtained Bantu legally. There have also been those whose applications have been refused and who have undertaken not to employ Bantu illegally. The neighbour of that industrialist, who employs Bantu illegally, is able to produce more. He gets the contracts and the tenders. Is that fair? The basic difference between us is that you are against section 3, whereas we are in favour of it. As far as section 3 is concerned, there are people who are employing Bantu illegally. However, there is a ratio—if you read the White Paper—of 2,5:1. That was the ratio until last year. At present the ratio is 2:1. Anyone can expand if he has two Bantu for every White. He is not prevented from expanding.

And then the Government maintains that it has a plan for growth.

Anyone can expand on that basis. We have a plan for growth. We have had a plan for growth since as far back as 1967. As one of the hon. members said, South Africa has the highest growth rate in the whole world. With this prediction … [Interjections.] No, do not run away now. In 1967 the Opposition predicted that our industrial development would stagnate and that our industries would die. Have they died? This evening, after eight years, our industrial development compares favourably with the rest of the world. The hon. member for Smithfield referred to this, and this evening the Opposition is once again prophesying doom. You will just be wrong again.

With a growth rate of less than 4%? Are you proud of that?

This evening I want to discuss a matter which is very important to me. After that I shall not have much more to say and then we can talk again during the Committee Stage. I want to address a few brief words to the industrialists, particularly those on the Witwatersrand and in other controlled areas. There are no industrialists of the kind to which I referred in the Port Elizabeth controlled area. There may be some in the Cape controlled area, but it is in the Pretoria / Witwatersrand controlled area in particular that there are many of them. I want to tell them this evening that both they and I know that there are industrialists who are contravening the Act and who are employing Bantu illegally. This evening I want to invite them to contact my department in order to discuss the matter and consider whether they could not be accommodated. Let them come and talk to us in terms of Government policy and in terms of the administration of that policy. If they come and talk to us, then we can accommodate them and rectify their position, according to the same criteria we have applied to their competitors in the last few years. Let them come and talk to us. Sir, I shall mention to you a few guidelines which we could apply. Two or three years ago the hon. the Minister of Finance said that we were prepared to allow industrialists to employ Bantu for double shifts. Let them come and talk to us. We can then accommodate them on the basis of double shifts with, the Bantu they are employing illegally. In addition, there is the further guide-line of spare capacity. Sir, we cannot allow the economy to suffer. We have never done so. [Interjection.] There is no point in making noises about it like a bull-calf seeking its mother. We have never yet harmed our economy, nor shall we do so in future. If the industrialist is unable to utilize his spare capacity, then surely he is engendering inflation. Two years ago the Minister of Finance said that spare capacity would be taken into account in allocating Bantu employees; that is a second guide-line. Then, too, there are certain strategic considerations on the basis of which we could perhaps assist our industrialists. There is also the issue of the non-decentralizability of industries. There are certain industries, viz. service industries, which are locality-bound, and there are certain industries which have invested so much capital that it would be uneconomical to try to decentralize them or even to try to decentralize the development of those industries. I want to tell the industrialists that they should come forward; we can then discuss matters with them and see whether we can accommodate them in accordance with the guide-lines being applied to applications which I have just mentioned. If an industrialist tells us that he is willing to investigate the possibility of decentralization, then we provide him with temporary Bantu while he investigates the matter, because we know that this cannot be done in a week, and consequently we provide him with temporary Bantu for a year, or however long it may take to investigate the matter of decentralization.

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

No, sit down.

If the industrialists come forward and if we are unable to assist or accommodate them after very sympathetic consideration, then they will have to consider their position. If we find that they cannot decentralize, then they will be allowed Bantu labour in any event, but if we find that they can decentralize, then we shall still give them time to get rid of their illegal Bantu employees, and if they do not want to do that, then not we, but the court will decide what the verdict must be.

Mr. Speaker, this is in respect of clause 3. The other important matter mentioned here is the issue of centralization in the provinces. Sir, I do not plead guilty in this regard. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that none of us deny the good work done by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. They have done outstanding work in the past. I take my hat off to them. I have told them this repeatedly. Nor do I deny the good work done by the other provinces and our large city councils as regards planning, but the fact of the matter is that the provinces are limited in the action they take. The provinces cannot make all these plans, including plans for Government departments.

Natal does it.

We are taking nothing from the provinces, nor do we want to do so. They will go on with their work under their ordinance and, as the hon. member said, we shall appoint them as our guide plan committee, too. Furthermore, we have a representative on their committee; we co-operate whole-heartedly with them, and there is the greatest confidence. Consequently we shall hold discussions with, the Government departments concerned and if necessary, the province will further adapt its plan to the requirements of the central Government and both Government departments. The plan which will then be compiled will be a guide plan providing additional statutory authority and applying to the public private sectors. In fact we are assisting the province to do its work more effectively; to develop further its autonomy and that of the city councils.

†I think that is about all I can say. The hon. member for Walmer does not want me to touch the provincial autonomy. Last year, I must remind the hon. member, that he and the hon. member for Wynberg came to me and asked my assistance to undo certain deeds that the Cape Provincial Administration had done. The hon. member cannot deny that he was not as satisfied with the planning of the province of the Cape then as he is tonight. He thought then that it would be a good thing if I had a bigger say. I want to ask hon. gentlemen about the Langebaan lagoon. Who can save the Langebaan lagoon? It is not the province because it has not got the powers to save the Langebaan lagoon. Why did the Natal Province not save the northern part of the Natal north coast? They did not have the powers to save the Natal north coast. I can name other instances as well. I want to say, Sir, that this Bill strikes a happy balance and a happy medium. It is the result of co-operation among the provinces. They consented to it and are cooperating with us in this regard. We actually have certain provisions in this Bill which were urgently requested by the provinces. I am satisfied that in the implementation of this Bill we will have a happy planning and co-operative system in South Africa.

Question put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes 89: Albertyn. J. T.; Aucamp. P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha. G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W; Botma, M C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer. S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. G; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. G; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter. J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, T. G B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, G; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. G; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; 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. G; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. H. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.;

Tellers: J. M. Henning, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and N. F. Treurnicht.

Noes—40: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V., Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; 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.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the proposed new subsection (5) refers to conditions imposed in terms of subsection (3) which, as I understand it, limits the employment of Bantu or a further number of Bantu in a proclaimed area. The Minister has the right to allow a factory to develop by employing a further number of Bantu in a proclaimed area. The hon. the Minister accused me by saying that I did not know what I was talking about. He thought I was referring to Natal, but I was referring to the Western Cape. Does the hon. the Minister agree that in the Western Cape he can prohibit a factory from developing by prohibiting the further employment of Bantu from Natal in the Western Cape? For instance, an employer in the Western Cape may require zulus because only Zulus can do rigging at heights. In such a case the Minister is the only person who can give him permission to employ those Zulus. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that the people in commerce and industry in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area are happy with clause 3. I merely want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I want to ask him why he refused 13 new industries and two extensions in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member for South Coast that when an application for the employment of additional Bantu comes before the committee of seven or when the application comes before me on appeal, the position is, in any case as far as I am concerned, that I never ask whether it is in regard to Zulus, Fingos, Tswanas or Xhosas. In other words, it may be Zulus. This is for the Bantu Administration Boards to decide. I do not know whether Bantu who fall under the Bantu Administration Board of Natal may go to the area of another Bantu Administration Board on a contract basis or on any other basis. If they may do it, they can come here. In the course of our work we do not inquire which population group they belong to. My reply to the hon. member’s question is, therefore, that it is quite possible. I thought that he was referring to Natal only.

The hon. member for Walmer asked me about 13 applications which were refused over a period of, say, eight years.

That is deterioration.

It is minimal, however, and there are probably reasons for it. I cannot say off-hand what the reasons are. There may have been some technical reason, or other reasons, but the number which was refused is minimal. What it really amounts to is that there are no refusals.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Transport, who is gambolling in the sunshine on the sands of Natal, I want to ask the hon. the Minister …

Why “gambling”? [Interjections.]

Gambolling spelt with an “o”. Let me use the word “frolicking” instead. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can explain how it is that in terms of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) on page 6 of the Bill he may proclaim railway stations and junctions, shunting-yards and air- and sea-ports when the Railways have a complete planning division and a Railway Board comprising ex-Nationalist Members of Parliament, who cost a lot of money, simply to do the job of determining where railway stations, etc., are to be established. How does that liaison come in and how does the absent Minister of Transport fit into these proclamations?

Mr. Chairman. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the purpose for which a particular piece of land has been reserved, can be changed. In other words, if land is reserved for the purpose of recreation and tourism, can that purpose be changed to provide for a thermal or hydro-electric power station, for example, in that particular area? I should like to know how binding this reservation is and how safe natural areas, for instance, are when they are reserved for that purpose.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban Point, I may tell him that this does not only concern railway stations and junctions, railway shunting yards, etc., but also airports, certain waterworks, thermic power stations such as the one here at Duinefontein, etc. We do not do the planning in regard to all these reservations. The authorities which have to do that work for the State, whether they be the Railways, the Department of Transport, Escom or the Department of Water Affairs, do their own planning. They then ask us to reserve that area they indicate in terms of our Act. That is how we shall do it. In other words, we shall not determine their needs for them. They determine it themselves and decide for themselves what they need. Afterwards they indicate to us what they want.

But you are the boss.

Yes, we are still the boss and we may point out to them certain things they did not know. After all, normal efficiency will require contact between them and us long before they approach as with their proposals. That is, how it will work, however, and we shall then bear final responsibility for it.

As far as the hon. member for Benoni is concerned, I should just like to ask what is final in this world. Nothing is final. We can appoint natural areas in terms of the Act and it will not be possible then to utilize them for township development or some other purpose. We shall never allow that. Only for overwhelmingly good reasons and convincing reasons of national interest I am afraid we shall be able to visualize circumstances in which we shall have to deproclaim those areas. However, I do not wish to cast any doubt this evening on what we may do in this regard, because we have very good intentions. Constantia has been discussed here, and I may just say that if this legislation is passed, I hope that the area in Constantia which adjoins the Groot Constantia Estate will be one of the first reservations. The reservation of the Langebaan lagoon will be the second one, while the reservation of the Magaliesberg area between Rustenburg and Brits will be the third one. On the north coast of Natal, where no mining concessions have been granted and where the Natal Parks Board has no jurisdiction, it will be possible to reserve the rest of the area in terms of this clause.

Why not the mining concession areas as well?

I have already said that one cannot take away existing rights without paying people compensation. However, we do not have powers of that nature in terms of this legislation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper—

I do so somewhat reluctantly, but I am informed that if I do not do so tonight and if this amendment has to stand over, for example, until the General Law Amendment Bill comes before this House next year, it will cause great inconvenience to the National Transport Commission and the Roads Departments of the various provinces. I feel that I cannot take that responsibility upon myself. Therefore. I move the amendment in the hope that these authorities will make careful use of this exemption and that they will ensure at all times that the conservation of the environment receives the highest priority. If any problems arise in this connection, viz. if it is not applied as desired either by them or by their contractors, I shall look at the matter again and possibly come back to this House with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must tell the hon. the Minister right away that we have no objection to his amendment and that we will support it.

Well, do not take ten minutes about it.

Clause 6, in fact, contains the whole principle of the Bill as far as we are concerned. Apart from the penal provisions in clauses 10 and 11, as far as we are concerned, it is clause 6 which is virtually the whole Bill and this is the clause we are opposed to. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that the provinces are limited in their powers. He referred to the fact that the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission was unable to make provision for something on the North Coast; it was not quite clear to what he was referring. I want to refer him, however, to a provision in the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission Ordinance whereby the commission is empowered to undertake such regional surveys and prepare such plans as may be deemed necessary in pursuance of any planning policy which may be adopted in terms of this ordinance. I do not know why the hon. the Minister says that the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission has not got the power to do any planning. However, I want to make a further point.

It has got all the power in the world.

The hon. the Minister says it has got all the power in the world. If the hon. the Minister says this, why did he, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, say that it did not have adequate power to enforce something on the North Coast? The hon. the Minister does not reply. Perhaps he will reply a little later. Let me anticipate his reply and say that the planning commission has the power to plan. It also has certain powers of enforcement, but those powers have been limited. All that was required here this evening was for this hon. Minister to come along with an empowering Bill to empower the Natal Provincial Administration to pass an ordinance to empower the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission to enforce its decisions. That was all that was required, not all this rigma-role of taking the power into his own hands. Why this concentration of all the power in Pretoria? What does Pretoria know about what the Natal North Coast needs or wants? And that is the man who is going to decide. That hon. Minister is going to decide once he has forced this Bill through. That is why we are entirely opposed to this Bill. That is why we are opposed to this clause. The hon. the Minister says: “Ons het die grootste vertroue in die Natalse Dorpsen Streeksbeplanning-kommissie; ons werk hartlik saam met hulle”. He goes on to say that the provinces have consented. How long did it take him to persuade the Natal Provincial Executive to consent to this Bill? I know that he has been working on them for years and years. He must not come here this evening and tell this Committee that the Natal Provincial Executive has consented to this Bill. They certainly did not do so willingly. However, what does a man do when he is lying on his back and one has got one’s heel on his throat with a sword between his eyes?

Never mind, he is not as dead as he seems to be.

Of course he gives in, and that is exactly what this hon. Minister has made Natal do. Natal resents the fact that this hon. Minister is going to take away from Natal the power to plan for its own province. Of course, when the hon. the Minister talks about the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission being unable to enforce certain decisions along the Natal North Coast, I must remind him that it was he and his colleagues who gave the authority to those people who have desecrated the sand dunes on the Natal North Coast. It was not the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission which tried its best to stop that happening. It was not the Natal Parks Board who also tried to stop it. It was not the ecologists of Natal either; they also tried to stop it. It was this Minister and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Mines and the Cabinet. They are the ones who gave the authority there. I want to come back to a further provision of this clause and to deal with it subsection by subsection.

Our first objection to this clause is with regard to subsection (1). In terms of this subsection the Minister may establish a guideplan committee which shall compile a draft guideplan in a defined area. Much has been said by hon. members on this side of the House in the Second Reading and I do not intend repeating all the arguments regarding the rights of individuals. The hon. the Minister knows that within the area which will be proclaimed there will be certain areas which are already subject to the town planning schemes which are in operation at the time when the investigation will take place. Nowhere in clause 6 or anywhere in this Bill is there any provision that the guideplan committee shall take any notice whatsoever of existing town planning schemes or of rights which have been acquired by property owners in terms of such town planning schemes. Therefore I wish to move—

1. (1) On page 8, in line 10, after “determined” to insert:

The object of this amendment is quite clear to all members of this Committee. When hon. members look at the Order Paper they will see the amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Jeppe. If the hon. the Minister looks at both of them, he will see that these two provisions tie up. What we are trying to provide for here is that if in fact a guideplan committee does infringe on the rights of anybody in terms of a town planning scheme which is in operation or binding under any law, compensation shall be paid to that person. I believe that it is only reasonable. I know that in all other town planning schemes where such rights are infringed, the interested persons or persons concerned have the right to compensation. In terms of these other schemes they also have the right of appeal. If a person is aggrieved by a scheme which is put into operation, he has the right to appeal to a tribunal. No such provision is made in this Bill, but my friend from Wynberg will deal with that a little bit later.

In subsection (2) we have another anomaly. There the iron fist of the hon. the Minister and the National Party shows through the kid glove. Subsection (2) provides that a guideplan committee shall consist of so many members as the Minister may deem fit to appoint, and that they shall be appointed so as to represent the Department of Planning and others, the provincial administrations concerned and any local authority. What does this mean? It means that the Minister will appoint people to represent them. We could find the situation where the hon. the Minister could appoint Joe Soap from Blikkiesdorp in the Northern Transvaal to represent the Durban Corporation. I do not believe that this is reasonable and I also do not believe that this is what the hon. the Minister intends doing. For that reason I move—

1. (2) On page 8, in lines 13 and 14, to omit “so as to represent” and to substitute:

If this amendment is accepted, the subsection will read that the Minister shall appoint so many members as the Minister may deem fit to appoint and they shall be appointed to be representative of—

1. (a) the Department of Planning;
2. (b) any provincial administration concerned;
3. (c) any local authority …

I believe that this is only reasonable and I move these amendments in the hope that the hon. the Minister will indicate that he will accept these two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply very briefly to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said. In respect of the fact that the legislation only has to be amended to provide enabling legislation for Natal, I want to say that the enabling provision is the one which deals with the Railways, railway stations and junctions. Surely we cannot allow the provincial councils to have the final say in such matters. Therefore it cannot be dealt with in that way and the legislation is correct as it stands here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, which is on page 8 in line 10 dealing with the question of cognizance of all town planning schemes. I particularly want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to subsection (10) of the new section 6A as it is proposed in clause 6 and to inform him that with regard to paragraphs (b) and part of (c), I at no time differed with him. I said that I thought that it was reasonable. My interpretation, however, differs from that of the hon. the Minister with regard to the last sentence in lines 52, 53 and 54, viz.—

“On that date” refers to the date of a guide plan and it has no reference to an existing town planning scheme. This is my difference with the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister insists that his interpretation is correct and I assume that he will then tell us that he has had the opinion of the legal experts of the department or the State—will he give an unequivocal assurance that those few words refer specifically to a town planning scheme and that it is being used for a purpose described in a town planning scheme. Otherwise, it must refer to the purpose which I have indicated, viz. that of a man who has land which is zoned for a specific purpose, but does not use it for that purpose at the date of the guide plan, because he has not developed the land yet. He is now precluded from developing it in terms of the zoning under the scheme, because at the date of the guide plan, he was using it for a purpose other than that to which he could develop it in terms of zoning under a town planning scheme. This is very important, because if my interpretation is correct, which I maintain it is, then this man is being seriously affected in his rights and I think it is borne out under paragraph (d) which says—

This is a prohibitive clause—

No permission can be given despite the fact that it includes a town planning scheme. I think that the hon. the Minister must give very close attention to the few words in paragraph (c) and that in paragraph (d) and read them together to realize that rights can be taken away. For that reason, I will later deal with what I call a savings clause with regard to compensation. Irrespective of this specific instance, which I think is extremely important and vital, it almost goes to the root of the entire Bill in so far as the rights of ownership of land are concerned which is a very dear thing to every individual and of cardinal importance in the whole of our legal framework: I would like to say that in any event a guide plan of this nature which has overall capacity and which encompasses so much, could for some reason or another and in certain manners which at the moment cannot be completely foreseen, interfere with the rights of people. There should therefore be a savings clause which could provide that compensation should be afforded to any person who suffers in any way, either in the form of damage or other form of loss, as the result of a guide plan. I understand that I am actually unable to move an amendment which provides for additional expenditure in this Bill. I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us the benefit of his thinking as to whether he does not agree that a savings clause to provide an umbrella protection for the citizens is not important in a Bill of this nature. As I said earlier on, this Bill is going to set a pattern for years to come. Its implications can be tremendous because it is virtually going to take the place of all planning authorities all over the country. Whatever is said by the hon. the Minister or those on his side of the House, it may co-operate with other planning authorities and it may provide that the guide plan can only be carried out and developed through subsidiary authorities such as provincial and local authorities. Nevertheless, this guide plan is going to be the overall pattern laid down by the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon?

Any Act can be amended.

I know any Act can be amended but I am asking now. I do not know what the hon. the Deputy Minister is worried about. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that it is important to have the savings clause providing an umbrella protection should any person suffer a loss. It does not bind the situation in regard to expenditure at present but it gives the necessary protection which I feel is important for the security of the citizen in a plan of these tremendous proportions. I ask the hon. the Minister to give that some thought.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate and I noticed that he did not give any replies to the matters I raised during that debate. I do not know what the object of his not replying was; it would have been much simpler if the hon. the Minister had replied or had said quite simply that he could not reply because he did not know what the answer was. We are now in the position where we do not know what is going on in the hon. the Minister’s mind. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister really knows what he is trying to enact in this Bill because I believe that if he really did know what he was trying to enact, he would receive such a shock that he would decide not to proceed with this Bill at this stage and would have another look at it during the recess. One of the most important principles of a town planning scheme is the fact that such a scheme is not a static scheme. Everybody who has been concerned with town planning in the Cape Province—that is where I learnt about it as I have been involved in town planning in the Cape for the past 30 years …

[Inaudible.]

For the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Defence, I would like to tell him that he may be an expert on Defence, but I am an expert on town planning.

That’s telling him!

I am not an expert.

Having disposed of the hon. the Minister of Defence, perhaps I can now get on with my speech. The essence of a town planning scheme is that one must be able to amend it so that it can move with the times. It is not like the Nationalist Party; it is more like the United Party which moves with the times. Therefore, one must have inbuilt into the scheme the ability and the right to change it from time to time if it complies with certain conditions. I would like to give an example. If one has zoned an area, let us say for single residential housing, and one decides in ten years’ time because of communications developments to change that single residential area to a general residential area where one can build high-rise buildings and many flats, then one can do so under the two planning scheme. I believe that the Minister is in for a shock because what is going to happen if he enacts the proposed section 6(A)(10)(d)? Paragraph (d) reads—

“Any other law” means a provincial ordinance or any law dealing with town planning—

Take the position that I have just sketched. Here you have a single residential area in the guide plan area, and the guide plan says that this area is single residential. The time has how arrived to change this single residential area into a general residential area. In terms of town planning laws, one can make the necessary application to the authority that is required to deal with, the matter; one can say that this area has now become an area which can be considered for a general residential use, and that authority can amend the town planning scheme. But, Sir, if the Minister enacts the proposed subsection (10)(d), then the authority which can sanction the amendment of the town planning scheme can no longer do it. I do not think that this has occurred to the Minister. I think this is the first time that this has occurred to him. Sir. I did not like the Minister’s attitude when he said in the Second Reading debate that I did not know what I was talking about. The Minister must pay a little attention to what I am saying, because I believe I have now found one small aspect of his Bill which, is nonsense, and unless the Minister is prepared to withdraw subparagraph (d), he is going to enact legislation which is going to make it impossible for any amendment to a town planning scheme in any area, which coincides with, the guide plan area and which is also an area which is subject to a town planning scheme. Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet, I think I should say to the Minister that on the Order Paper is a suggestion which I thought the hon. the Minister would be man enough to admit is a very good suggestion and which, I thought he would say he was perfectly willing to take over. I am making this offer to the Minister to take over this suggestion of mine on the Order Paper, because I believe that if he does so he can still make this section work after a fashion. Sir, the hon. the Minister was very high in his praise of the Natal Town and Regional Planning Board, and I want to tell him that this suggestion of mine, which appears on page 418 of the Order Paper, was taken almost word for word from the town planning ordinance of the province of Natal, with small amendments here and there to make it fit in with the position which we have in this Bill. I think it is a very fine suggestion, and if the Minister were to take it over he would still be able to save himself from passing thoroughly bad legislation, because this suggestion of mine suggests that if a guide plan has been approved by him and anyone is aggrieved by the provisions of that guide plan, he can then take the Minister on appeal to an appeal board, which is constituted in the same way as the Natal Appeal Board under their ordinance. I think that the hon. the Minister should be very sympathetic to this suggestion because if he accepts it there can be no question of bureaucratic considerations coming into the picture when consideration is given to an application made by a person who is aggrieved by a guide plan proposal. Sir, this is important because my suggested Appeal Board is going to be a completely independent body that is going to give an independent judgment. Otherwise the position is going to be, as the Minister said in the Second Reading debate, that if anybody does not like the guide plan of which he has approved, he can appeal to him. But how can anyone have any confidence in any appeal to the Minister when the Minister has already given his judgment in approving of the guide plan? I believe that this is a way out. It may not be the be all and end all of this problem, but at least it is a way out, I think it is worthwhile considering. I am prepared to play ball with the hon. the Minister. I am not going to move this as an amendment; I shall play ball with the hon. the Minister and allow him the opportunity to move it as an amendment.

Order! No, the hon. the Minister is not allowed to move it either since it seeks to establish a body which is not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, may I argue that?

No, the hon. member may not.

On a point of order, may I argue that? Why I should like to argue it, is that the hon. the Minister has come forward with a completely new system of town planning in clause 6. There is nothing like it anywhere in the Act. This is a completely new principle which the hon. the Minister is introducing.

That principle has been approved of at Second Reading.

Yes, I realize that.

But then you surely know that you cannot do it.

Which principle is being accepted? This is my point of order. What is the principle that has been accepted at the Second Reading?

You must not argue with the Chair; you are too stupid for that.

Order! The hon. member cannot take the argument any further. The Bill as read a Second Time, makes no provision for any body as contemplated by the hon. member. Therefore, he cannot move anything of the kind now.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

No, I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on your ruling?

No, I have given my ruling and it is a considered ruling.

Mr. Chairman, there are three points which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first one concerns the proposed section 6A(3)(b) which provides—

It seems undesirable to me to censor the views of local authorities which I believe is an inevitable consequence of the province being required to approve and submit their views. Since the province itself is represented on the guide plan committees it does not, in fact, seem very appropriate that it should also be involved in the production of evidence to be presented before such a committee. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to explain his reasoning behind this paragraph.

The next point in which I am interested is the proposed new subsection (8) which enables the hon. the Minister on receipt of the draft guide plan to approve that guide plan. In other words, it would appear that the hon. the Minister’s discretion is confined merely to the approval of the plan. It would appear that he may not vary that plan. I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether this is how he reads the provision and whether he sees himself as being in a position to vary the plan should he so desire.

I now come to the third point. I, like the hon. member for Jeppe, am a little worried about the position that no provision exists in terms of the Bill to compensate persons who may well have acquired land in good faith for a particular purpose and which through no fault of their own becomes unobtainable owing to an alteration in the utilization of the particular land.

I am not going to move amendments on any of these three matters but I should like to hear the answers of the hon. the Minister in this regard. If I could also have his assurance that at a later stage he might possibly be prepared to consider an amendment which could be included in a General Law Amendment Bill to alter this position, I would be satisfied not to pursue the matter any further. I do, however, think that these are three very pertinent points.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to the hon. the Minister’s amendment, in which it is proposed that for the construction of a public road or railway line, it is unnecessary to have a permit to quarry stone, sand, clay, gravel or soil, but stone crushing is excluded. After all, the construction of a road or railway normally requires stone crushing. Why is a permit required for stone crushing and not for other types of quarrying?

Mr. Chairman, when I moved the amendment, I stated my point of view in this regard, and I stand by that. I must do so, or otherwise, so I have been informed, I shall delay the work on road building in South Africa. That is why I have moved it. I move it on the assumption that there will be proper agreements between myself and the road building authorities in respect of the conservation and repair of the environment where they will need material for road building.

It is just that we do not understand the wording.

We can still go into that, but the fact of the matter is that anyone who wants to start stone crushing will have to ask for a permit for that, except if it is for the purpose of building a public road or a railway line. I stand by the opinion which I gave the hon. members for Jeppe and Wynberg just now, viz. that no town planning scheme which has been put into effect by that date—i.e. when the guide plan area is introduced—may be amended to provide for the zoning of land for a purpose inconsistent with the guide plan concerned. In other words, one has an existing town planning scheme and as from a certain date it is binding; it is valid. It remains valid, but may not be amended so as to conflict with the guide plan. Until it is amended, it remains as it is, and is included in the guide plan as it is. Quite honestly, that is how I read this paragraph, and my law advisors have confirmed that that is the intention.

May I ask a question? Suppose there is a piece of land which has already been zoned in terms of a town planning scheme and whose zoning coincides exactly with that of the guide plan. How can that piece of land be re-zoned if the guide plan may not be changed and the use of the land has, therefore, to remain as indicated in the guide plan?

Obviously the guide plan will not zone the land in detail. You will realize that the most it will do is, for example, to indicate residential areas in the larger guide plan areas. The detailed planning of the residential areas and the different categories which the hon. member mentioned, such as single residential and general residential, are not indicated in the guide plan. That is done by the local authority concerned which introduces the town planning scheme. The guide plan does not plan the area in detail, but in general. It indicates residential areas and industrial areas and it also indicates open areas, but then the province or the local authority carries out the detailed planning in accordance with their town planning scheme. When a larger metropolitan plan is compiled, for example for Cape Town, Paarl, Bellville, etc., all present planning is included in the guide plan without being altered.

Is that an assurance you are giving us?

Yes, that is the assurance I am giving you. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member can take my word for it that this is the case. Everyone who has rights in terms of the existing urban planning schemes, retains those rights. Nobody will take them away from them. If they were to have to be changed by the local authority and the province, then they could change them, but then they would have to be changed in terms of the broader guide plan. I have nothing more to add. I am prepared to give that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Say for argument’s sake the farm of the hon. member for Paarl had been situated outside the Paarl municipal area.

It is a proper farm.

Let us also take it that in terms of the planning scheme, that farm is zoned for agricultural purposes. However, it is now felt that it would be ideal for industrial purposes. According to the guide plan, it is zoned for agricultural purposes. However, it does not state for what aspect of agriculture. For example, it does not state that the land should be zoned for smallholdings, or whatever. Where such an area is zoned by a guide plan as an industrial area, the guide plan will not state what kind of industry may be developed there, either. It could also refer to residential areas, but whether it should be single or general residential, will not be stated. If the broad classification were to be changed—if, for example, the farm belonging to the hon. member for Paarl, which is zoned for agricultural purposes, were now to be zoned for industrial purposes—paragraph (d) of the new section 6A (10) provides that with effect from a certain date—

In the case of the farm belonging to the hon. member for Paarl being zoned as agricultural land and then having to be changed to industrial land, how are we going to do this, particularly in view of the fact that industrial land is inconsistent with the guide plan concerned? It is possible for the hon. member for Paarl to have it changed? As I see it, he cannot have it changed.

Mr. Chairman, when one compiles a guide plan for Paarl and one goes beyond the boundaries of the existing area of jurisdiction of the local authority—let us take it that it is a developing area and that one goes beyond those boundaries—and one includes the farm belonging to the hon. member for Paarl, then the local authority, the divisional council, the provincial administration the Department of Agriculture—in fact, everyone concerned with the greater guide plan—must decide that in our forward planning we are going to use that farm for no other purpose, viz. that it will remain an agricultural area. If, for the sake of argument, that is the decision, it will be excised and once again controlled by the Minister of Agriculture. However, as the hon. member stated, it may be decided that, because we envisage that the industrial area will develop as far as that in the course of 20 years, it will be zoned as a future industrial area. However, that land cannot be used immediately as an industrial area, but must first be zoned as an industrial area under a town planning scheme and developed as an industrial area. In the meantime the land is used for the purpose for which it has always been used. In other words, in the case of the farm belonging to the hon. member for Paarl, it will be used for agriculture until such time as an industrial township is established in terms of a town planning scheme. Only then will it be accorded the character which the guide plan gives it. It may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is zoned in the guide plan, viz. industrial development. If one wants to resubdivide such an area in the guide plan—for residential development, for example—at a later stage and for very good reasons, the Bill provides that the whole procedure followed in terms of the guide plan has then to be repeated, including the assembling and consultation of all the people involved, its proclamation, the opportunity for the public to object, the consideration of objections, etc. Only then can a guide plan be changed. That is how the legislation provides for the matter to be dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I put to the hon. the Minister the question of some savings clause to provide for protection in case it should arise that there is a loss to an individual who may be affected by a guide plan. There should be a savings clause to provide for compensation. I would very much like to move the amendment standing in my name in the Order Paper i.e. to add a new section 6C. If it should be ruled out of order as an amendment. I am just wondering how the hon. the Minister, if he favours this particular attitude which I think will be a sound provision in the Bill and will give a great deal of assurance to the public, will ensure that this will be provided for. Therefore, I move the amendment as printed—

1. 6C. When the provisions of an approved guide plan affect the use of any land in such manner as to cause loss or damage to any person or persons, the Minister shall compensate such person or persons for such loss or damage, and the compensation shall be determined in the manner set out in the Expropriation Act, 1975.

I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe, as it requires the State President’s recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, obviously I do not want to speak on the amendment, but I was asked a question by the hon. member. I do not want to detain the House, but this matter is a very important one. With planning, this matter crops up continually, and I would like to illustrate our difficulty by means of one or two examples. A development company bought land near Stellenbosch station. It cost them a lot of money, but they wanted to develop that land for industrial purposes. However, it did not fall in with our planning ideas for that area, and we did not allow that development to take place. Is this company now losing money, or is it not? Must we now reimburse this company for the loss of development that could have taken place on that land? I want to mention another example. In the Saldanha Bay area …

That is a remote loss, not a direct loss.

… Iscor bought land for housing development for their employees. When we drew up our guide plan for that area, we did not include that land in the plan. What is the position now? Iscor is losing out, because they invested money there. But we are not including that land in our guide plan, and that is that. At Duinefontein a certain radius was drawn round the nuclear power station. We stopped all development within that radius. In that radius people held options for township development, but no development will now take place there. Do those people lose money, or do they not? This matter crops up continually, and I am not prepared to consider, even at a later stage, the type of provision the hon. member talks about.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the examples he has given are examples of remote losses. I am talking about a man who actually has a right, and not a right which he hopes to acquire. Because of a guide plan, for some reason or other, he loses that existing right. If he loses the right to exercise that right, that would be a direct loss.

Mr. Chairman, the person who has a right under a planning scheme does not lose that right, but retains it.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the hon. the Minister has not indicated his attitude towards the two amendments which I have moved. I wonder if he could indicate now across the floor what his attitude to those amendments is.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I am not prepared to accept these amendments because, as we have just discussed, their provisions are contained in the Bill. This assurance is one which he can also accept. I also feel that I can take exception to the hon. member’s attitude. Does the hon. member want to insinuate that if I appoint people to represent the Department of Planning, I will appoint someone from the Department of Water Affairs?

For planning, no.

Or for the various other State departments? If I must appoint someone to represent Water Affairs on our committee, does the hon. member think I will go and appoint someone from the Department of Bantu Affairs? Does the hon. member think that if I want somebody to represent Bantu Affairs I will appoint someone from the Department of Defence? Is the hon. member insinuating that I am silly? The hon. member for South Coast talked of political appointees. What is he insinuating? If I appoint someone to represent the Natal Provincial Administration, of course I will not appoint someone from the Transvaal or the Free State. I am not that silly. That goes without saying.

You are wasting our time here.

It is absolutely unnecessary to entertain any of these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, it is exactly because of this attitude that we are opposing this clause and this Bill. We are doing so because of the very attitude the hon. the Minister is displaying now. Why? He has given us a long list of undertakings here tonight, assurances that he is not going to interfere with the rights of individuals. Why will he not write this into the Bill? That is the question.

It is in the Bill.

It is not in the Bill. Will the hon. the Minister tell me where in the Bill he says that he will not amend existing town planning schemes? Where does he say in that Bill that the rights of property owners under existing town planning schemes are protected? Nowhere! There is no provision in this Bill whatsoever

Read the Bill.

Read the Bill! I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that he should read the Bill. We have read this Bill. We have had three moths to study it and he must not think that tonight he can come and pull the wool over our eyes because he thinks he has pulled something out of the hat, something we have only had a few minutes to look at. We have had three months to study this Bill. We have had a long time to discuss it. We have had a long time to find out what the snags in the Bill are. We have come along this evening in all reasonableness to the hon. the Minister. I believe that the first amendment that I moved is perfectly reasonable. When the guideplan committee draws up a guide plan it should take cognizance of the provisions of any town planning scheme in operation at the time. I am not referring to unlawful ones. I am referring to lawful ones, those which have given rights to people. When the hon. the Minister replies to my friend, the hon. member for Jeppe, and talks about nebulous rights which might in the future arise from speculators who are trying to buy land adjacent to where they are going to build a power station. I am compelled to say that this is not what my friend, the hon. member for Jeppe, inferred. Neither is it what I said to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate. However, he knows about the Harrison Flats town planning scheme, a scheme introduced by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. In terms of that scheme rights have been acquired by land owners. He knows too that because of those rights which have been acquired, certain land has changed hands at terribly high values. Land which is today being used for agricultural purposes has changed hands at the rates going for industrial land because of the industrial rights which pertained to that land. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. In terms of this scheme the guide plan committee can institute a plan for that area to say that that land shall be for agricultural purposes. Will he compensate the land-owners?

They cannot do it.

Why can’t they do it? Where does it say that they cannot do it? There is no provision anywhere in this Bill which limits the guide plan committee in any way. They are not limited in any way, but they are completely unfettered. They dan go and prepare a draft guide plan which will be approved by this hon. Minister and which has no conditions attached to it at all. They are absolutely unfettered and there are no controls over them at all. No limitations are contained in this Bill. We have seen the attitude of the hon. the Minister. I asked him in all reasonableness to accept that the persons who are to form the committee should be persons representative of the particular bodies concerned. And I said that he could bring Joe Soap from Pampoentjiesfontein to represent the Durban Corporation. That is exactly what he Can do in terms of the Bill as it reads to-day. It does not mean that he has to have somebody who is either a member of the Durban Corporation or an employee of the Durban Corporation. [Interjections.] I am not making personal insinuations, but it is the attitude of the hon. the Minister which makes us suspicious. When I am referring to the hon. the Minister, I am not referring to the hon. Jannie Loots, but I am also referring to his successors, the future Ministers of Planning whoever they might be. Because of the attitude of the hon. the Minister, we cannot accept this clause and therefore we shall vote against it.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—40 Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. L; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. L; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers W. G.; Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—84: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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. P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Planning and the Environment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—85: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—40: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (‘t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; 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 Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.