Mr. Speaker, I move—

When I presented the Railways and Harbours budget last year, the severe problems experienced in the country’s main harbours brought about by an unprecedented influx of imports, overshadowed all other matters raised. In contrast, this financial year’s activities are being concluded in a period of relative economic slackness, with the country waging a campaign against inflation.

I shall presently acquaint the House with events which highlighted the past year, but first of all I would like to deal briefly with present and future economic trends with which the S.A. Railways and Harbours as the largest transport undertaking in the country, the biggest employer of labour, one of the foremost investors of capital and buyers of consumer goods, is so intimately involved.

The South African economy has been in the downward phase of the business cycle since the third quarter of 1974. As a result of this downswing in economic activity the growth rate for 1975 was appreciably lower than the long-term average. Present indications are that this trend will continue for the rest of this financial year, which will result in a lower growth rate than the 4% on which the original budget for 1975-’76 was based.

Although the cooling off in the national economy resulted in less pressure on production capacity and the factors of production, external forces such as the sustained high rate of inflation in the economies of South Africa’s major trading partners until fairly recently, the steep increases in the price of oil and the devaluation of the Rand have reacted against the early softening of domestic prices. The result was that the exceptionally high rate of inflation which was experienced during the peak of the business cycle was also projected into the downward phase. The latest figures show a decline in the rate of inflation, which can be expected to continue in the light of lower rates of inflation in major Western countries and the extension of the collective campaign against inflation locally.

This relatively high rate of domestic inflation, coupled with the direct effects of devaluation on the prices of imported capital goods, has given rise to an appreciable increase in Railway expenditure, without a compensating increase in revenue.

As the inflation problem must be overcome before a sound economic recovery can commence, the stimulation of domestic demand as a potential motive force for economic growth in the year ahead can be virtually excluded. This implies that for the generation of growth momentum the country will have to depend largely on an increase in exports. Although leading economic indicators in the most important industrial countries after months of decline show a slight upturn it is not expected that economic growth in these countries will really gain momentum before the middle of 1976.

In the absence of positive growth factors as indicated by little or no increase in Government spending, no immediate prospects for an increase in consumer demand, a relatively weak balance of payments position, a high rate of inflation and no early boost for exports, the prospects for an early or vigorous recovery of the domestic economy are slim. It is anticipated that the economic upswing in South Africa may only materialize in the second half of 1976 with a growth rate for the financial year 1976-’77 as a whole of between 2% and 3%.

Against this background I shall now review the business of the current year.

Passenger Services

The upward trend in the total number of passenger journeys has been maintained although at a reduced rate. For the period April to December 1975 an increase of 13,2 million journeys or 2,8% as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year has been recorded.

I am pleased to inform the House that the reservation facilities for third class passengers to which I referred last year have been satisfactorily extended and passengers travelling third class can now reserve their accommodation on 14 main-line trains in the Republic and South West Africa. Extension of the facilities continues.

Another, and so far well patronized service, has been provided in that facilities for the conveyance of passengers’ private cars, already available on the Drakensberg Express trains, were extended to the Trans-Karoo trains as from 1 December 1975.

A memorable day in the history of the South African Railways is without doubt 25 August 1975. At 07h00 that day, a conference train consisting of the White train’s dining saloon flanked by a lounge car and a private saloon on either side was placed on the Victoria Falls Bridge to serve as conference venue for the Rhodesian Government and the African National Congress. To have made this train available at short notice and provide effectively for all the special requirements was a major undertaking. It was at the same time an eagerly accepted challenge and the excellent service provided on foreign soil under difficult circumstances was worthy of the high praise it received from many quarters and served as tangible proof of our spirit of goodwill and friendship. I have decided that the cost of the operation will be borne by the Railways as our contribution towards achieving the laudable aims of détente.

Goods Traffic

Goods traffic conveyed during the period April to December 1975 again showed an increase as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year but, as could be expected in the existing economic climate, the growth rate was lower than the previous year. Goods conveyed in the high-rated tariff classes 1 to 10 increased by 2,5% as against 13,6% recorded the previous year, whilst the growth rate for low-rated goods traffic was fractionally higher than for the corresponding period of 1974.

Coal and coke traffic conveyed increased by some 2,1 million tons. In so far as maize, fruit and ores are concerned, the Railways succeeded in meeting the customers’ requirements in full. Tonnages of bulk commodities conveyed this year were generally higher than last year.

The marshalling of goods trains into block-loads which can by-pass a maximum number of intermediate shunting yards has obvious economic advantages. Great progress has been made towards achieving this objective by introducing a zoning system.

The scheme is based on the principle of dividing the country into 64 areas or zones with distinctive identification symbols which enables trucks suitably labelled to be marshalled into trains that will by-pass all yards en route to their destinations.

The system ensures quicker transit times, less shunting and therefore less danger of accidents and damage, quicker turn-round time of trucks, quicker delivery of goods and greater efficiency all round. Positive results have already been achieved with the transportation of coal.

The Railways has succeeded in maintaining the service to Maputo—formerly Lourenço Marques—and has kept up a sound working arrangement with its neighbour. All technical assistance requested, has been given.

Road Transport

Increases were recorded in respect of both first and third class passengers conveyed. A total of 13,5 million third class passengers has been conveyed and this represents an increase of 1 per cent over the previous year’s figure. The services provided between large industrial areas and the Bantu homelands over weekends are particularly well patronised and account largely for the improvement achieved.

Some 2,9 million tons of goods traffic were conveyed and this reflects an increase of 2% compared with the previous year. The improvement resulted mainly from the conveyance of large quantities of cement and slagment to the power stations at Kriel and Matla and the Ruacana project, and increased traffic for Swaziland, Ovambo, Kavango and the Transkei. A larger offering of sugar from Pongola to Piet Retief also materialized since the sugar mill at Pongola came into production in June 1975.

The traffic potential of the various routes is under continuous scrutiny. Where it appears that a service cannot be justified, its withdrawal or adjustment is considered in conjunction with the users involved. During the period under review, 19 services were withdrawn, whilst in 12 instances new services have been introduced or existing services extended.

Airways

With the exception of freight carried on the external services, continual traffic growth has once again been a characteristic of the air services. For the period April to December 1975 the total number of passengers increased by 4,9%, mail ton-kilometres by 17% and internal freight ton-kilometres by 3,8%. External freight ton-kilometres showed a decrease of 6,2%.

The South African Airways is, however, on the threshold of the biggest development in its history.

The airline currently fully utilizes its five B747 aircraft on the services to Europe and the United Kingdom whilst a number of additional services to Europe are still being operated with B707 aircraft. On the latter routes South African Airways competes directly with other carriers flying wide-bodied aircraft. The ever-increasing traffic demands as well as the competitive disadvantage of the smaller B707s contributed to the decision to purchase three B747 SP aircraft which will be delivered shortly. These aircraft each seat 275 passengers and can fly longer distances than the present B747s.

At the same time the present fleet of B747 aircraft is being modified and fitted with more powerful engines to yield virtually the same advantages as the SP aircraft. Apart from affording greater comfort to the travelling public, it will enable South African Airways to fly a more direct route to destinations and so hold its own against competition from foreign carriers operating to the Republic.

The wisdom of this decision was emphasized by events in Angola which compelled us to eliminate Luanda on our route network and switch over to Windhoek and Ilha do Sal. The longer flying capabilities of the new and modified aircraft will bring about a larger degree of independence but we are, of course, continually looking for alternative ports of call to Europe. The landing of flight SA 229 on 28 November 1975 at Abidjan was a welcome and positive step in this direction. With effect from 1 April 1976 South African Airways will land regularly once a week in both directions at Abidjan for refuelling purposes.

The completion of the new runway at Upington is of particular value to the South African Airways as it will now, when necessary, be able to fly direct to points in Europe with a more economic payload than from Jan Smuts Airport on account of Upington being on a much lower altitude.

A further three B747 SP aircraft have since been ordered for delivery towards the end of this year and early 1977. On completion of delivery, the South African Airways will have 11 B747s, enabling it gradually to replace the B707 equipment on its international routes.

I mentioned last year that the seating configuration of the Boeing 727 and 737 aircraft on domestic and regional services was being changed from five to six abreast to increase capacity by 20%. The South African Airways currently finds itself in the position that high daily frequencies are being operated on the two most important routes, i.e. those between Johannesburg and Durban, and Johannesburg and Cape Town. This virtually precludes any further expansion since it could cause severe operational problems.

It was accordingly decided to buy four Airbus 300 aircraft to supplement the fleet on the domestic routes. These will be delivered towards the end of this year and early during 1977. The Airbus seats 270 passengers and, in addition, can convey between five and eight tons of cargo. These aircraft will initially be used on the above-mentioned two routes only and will enable South African Airways to provide the comfort of wide-bodied aircraft to domestic passengers. First class accommodation will also be available on these aircraft for those who prefer to travel in even more congenial circumstances. The enhanced capacity provided on these routes by the introduction of the Airbus will be utilized to relieve the pressure on the other domestic and regional routes and to meet the expected increase in the demand for air travel as a result of fuel price increases.

Pipelines

White products conveyed during the period April to December 1975, showed an increase of 8,2% as compared with the same period of the previous year; 3,4 million tons have been conveyed. A total of 3,6 million tons of crude oil was conveyed, an increase of 61,8%.

Construction on the new 406 mm diameter white products pipeline from Durban to the Reef is about to commence. It will follow the route Durban - Pietermaritzburg - Ladysmith - Newcastle—Volksrust - Standerton - Roodebank to Alrode. A 323 mm diameter extension will be provided from Roodebank to Witbank from where the Northern Transvaal can be served. A main line pump station is being provided at Roodebank to provide for a branch line from Sasol 2. This pipeline is a vital link in the Department’s overall plan to expand the transport infrastructure.

Harbours

In my introductory remarks I referred briefly to the strain under which the country’s main harbours were working at the close of the previous financial year.

Port congestion prevailed until about the middle of 1975 when the volume of imports declined and the special steps taken by the Administration in the form of the two-shift system and additional plant and facilities succeeded in wiping out the backlog. The freight surcharges were gradually adjusted and when the flow of cargo reverted to normal the surcharges were withdrawn. It has recently become evident that although total traffic at Durban is increasing, there is a decline in general cargo. Sporadic bunching of ship arrivals and inclement weather have, however, occasioned minor delays to ships, followed by intermittent slack periods. East London Harbour is presently experiencing a lean period in respect of general cargo, although total traffic has increased due to maize exports. Table Bay and Port Elizabeth Harbours have been operating steadily without any appreciable decline in the volumes of traffic handled.

Some 7,2 million tons of general cargo were landed during the nine months under review as against 9 million tons the corresponding period of the previous year—a decrease of 20,6%; bulk cargo landed, on the other hand, increased by 16,2%—17,7 million tons having been landed. The decrease in general cargo landed resulted mainly from reduced general merchandise and steel imports, whilst the increase in bulk cargo landed is attributed principally to an increased tonnage of petroleum products.

General cargo shipped reflected an increase of 5,8% over the previous year’s figure, some 5,2 million tons having been exported. Bulk cargo shipped increased by 3,5%, representing a total of 15,7 million tons. The improvement in general cargo shipped resulted mainly from increases in deciduous and citrus fruit. Bulk cargo shipped increased because of more maize, petroleum products and coal. A slight decline was experienced in the volume of ores and minerals exported.

Total cargo landed, shipped and transhipped during the nine months in question amounted to 46 million tons as compared with 44,7 million tons the previous year— an increase of only 2,9%.

With the impending containerization and the basic harbour works at Richards Bay almost complete, there will be considerably more capacity and flexibility to handle abnormal volumes of traffic during future peaks of the business cycle.

Staff

There were only 1 686 registered unemployed White males in the Republic at the end of October 1975, i.e. 0,18% of the total economically active White population. This is in effect full employment and the Railways still finds it difficult to fill all vacancies in certain grades.

Advantage was taken of the improvement in the labour market caused by a slow-down in general economic activity, to fill vacancies, many arising in newly created jobs for non-Whites. The abnormal requirements in our harbours a year ago can be cited as a specific instance where the staff had to be substantially supplemented. Lack of suitably trained staff is often a problem with which the Railways has to contend and the opportunities of a slack labour market can, therefore, never be ignored.

In this regard it is also important to note that traffic growth has remained constantly higher than increases in the labour establishment. From September 1971 to October 1975, for instance, total staff employed increased by 10,03% whilst rail and harbour traffic rose by 18,2% and air traffic was higher by as much as 66,3%. During the period April to December 1975 the total tonnage of goods and coal conveyed showed an increase of 3,9% over the same period of the previous year.

The labour position in the Railways is nevertheless under continuous scrutiny in an endeavour to ensure maximum efficiency under prevailing circumstances. In this regard it is of interest to report that during October last year total staff employed declined by 345 in comparison with the previous month. At the end of December 1975 the number of staff employed decreased by a further 388 units.

The Railways places a high premium on quality in its selection of staff for promotion and for new appointments. It realizes only too well that it is of no use merely to insist on more work in the lower ranks, but that productivity also consists of more effective decision-making in the middle and higher levels of the hierarchy.

No undertaking can function effectively unless its management at all levels is able to meet the dictates of modem requirements. This is particularly valid in the case of a complex organization such as the S.A. Railways and Harbours which must cater for the needs of industry, commerce, mining, agriculture and various other sectors of the economy in a dynamic environment. For this reason it is essential that managerial potential should be identified and developed as a continuous process. After considerable research it has been decided to adopt a system of management development which has already yielded encouraging results. A personnel development unit has been established to direct the work in this field and I am convinced that it will make an important contribution towards our efforts in attaining optimum efficiency.

For me the outstanding feature in so far as personnel matters are concerned, has been the attitude of the Railway staff associations towards the economic situation in the country generally and the anti-inflation campaign in particular. I sincerely appreciate their cooperation and the manner in which they have associated themselves with the provisions of the Manifesto. This is all the more praiseworthy in the light of the fact that the last salary increase was almost two years ago and that the consumer price index has since risen by more than 20%. Hon. members and all sectors of the economy will no doubt acclaim, as I do, the considerable constraint that has been exercised. Although this is consistent with the normal approach of Railway staff associations, the circumstances in this instance have set a severe test to their sense of responsibility.

It is clear that the staff and their representatives have a deep understanding of the total problem confronting the country. They have shown a fine grasp of the relationship between national and self-interest and I am also convinced that they know the Government is fully aware of their needs and will not shirk its responsibility towards them. I have agreed to discuss their claims for improved salaries with the various staff associations during April. I will certainly honour this undertaking and look forward to continued negotiations with them on the basis of mutual trust and understanding and with full acceptance of our responsibilities in the light of prevailing economic and other circumstances. I must, however, point out that should an agreement be reached in regard to salary adjustments, this will necessitate a simultaneous adjustment in rates and fares.

Hon. members will recall that I referred last year to the job evaluation investigation being conducted where non-Whites operate in non-bonus working positions with a view to providing incentives towards greater productivity and self-reward. This study is now practically complete and I have made provision in the budget for an amount of R20 million to give practical effect to the proposals.

*Research

Research to improve the capability of the 1 065 mm gauge to minimise disadvantages compared with the broader gauges, continues. Considerable success has been achieved.

The high-stability cross-anchor bogie design which I mentioned last year, has been successfully applied during tests on goods vehicles such as ore and motor car wagons, guards’ vans and also on four-wheeled wagons. In all instances a remarkable improvement in the riding qualities and, perhaps even more important, stability resulted. New goods vehicles ordered in future will be fitted with this type of bogie, and a suitable design for converting existing bogies is being developed.

It is of interest to know that Iscor has also decided to incorporate this bogie design in their new ore wagons for the Sishen-Saldanha scheme. A passenger coach type bogie incorporating the same principle is being developed and will be tested this year.

Ore test trains of 2,25 km in length, comprising 200 wagons with a total mass of 16 000 tons and hauled by 12 diesel locomotives have been successfully operated during the past year on the ore run to Port Elizabeth. Valuable experience for the possible future use of remote controlled slave locomotives on long block loads has been gained.

The most sophisticated radio system ever to be installed by the Department will shortly be introduced. This R4 million project will provide multi-channel speech facilities between each of the 100 diesel locomotives on the Broodsnyersplaas-Richards Bay coal line and the traffic control centres at Ermelo, Vryheid and Richards Bay. It is a computer-backed system which will ensure continued operation of trains in the event of signal failures occurring.

Transportation Policy

The question of the Railways’ share in the transportation market has again been raised during the past year and I should like to comment briefly on the plea that private enterprise be allowed greater freedom in this regard. As hon. members are aware, a Government Commission was appointed to investigate and report on the provisions of the Road Transportation Bill submitted to the House last year. This complex and contentious matter is thus still sub judice and it would certainly be sensible not to take ad hoc decisions on the matter at this stage. I nevertheless wish to inform the House that the Railways is quite prepared to move towards a situation of freer competition, but there are three vital preconditions that would have to be met.

Firstly, it will be necessary for the Railways to develop sufficiently towards a cost-orientated tariff structure, to enable it as an autonomous business undertaking, to operate on a sound competitive basis. This, however, would have a considerable impact on all sectors of the economy and the policy would, therefore, have to be implemented with great circumspection and only after in-depth analysis.

Secondly, the Railways should be relieved of the financial burden of providing services at uneconomic charges on socio-economic considerations.

Lastly, the relative burden of infrastructure costs of rail and road should be placed on a more equitable basis. In this regard I may mention that the National Institute for Road Research of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has been requested to conduct an urgent inquiry into the relevant costs of road and rail transport.

The Railways is, therefore, co-operating fully towards ensuring that transport in South Africa is regulated in a manner that will serve the best interests of the country.

New Works and Equipment

The Department is still heavily committed to providing the necessary transportation infrastructure for the country’s needs. On the mammoth Broodsnyersplaas-Richards Bay scheme, which will be of great benefit to the country as a whole, planned progress has been maintained.

The Department’s undertaking approximately 5 years ago to have Richards Bay Harbour and its rail back-up facilities for the export of coal ready by April 1976 has been realized and I am pleased to announce that on the first of next month the occasion will be suitably commemorated. South Africa can indeed be proud of the achievements which will be highlighted by this event.

This deepsea port is the country’s first harbour constructed since Union. It is being specially equipped for bulk cargo vessels and will, therefore, play a significant role in improving our balance of payments position.

In regard to the major electrification schemes I would like to report that contracts for the electrification of the line to Richards Bay have been placed. The conventional direct current traction will be employed on the section Broodsnyersplaas-Ermelo but on the Ermelo-Vryheid-Richards Bay section alternating current electrification is to be used.

The Kroonstad-Hamilton section was energized on 8 December, and the Springs-Nigel section on 13 December 1975. Good progress is being made with the electrification of the sections Welverdiend-Lichtenburg, Derwent-Roossenekal and Witbank-Eerste Fabrieke. The Estimates for 1976-’77 also provide for a new electric locomotive depot at Kroonstad at a cost of R4,5 million.

Various capital works on the Reef have been completed or are nearing completion, such as stage 1 of the quadrupling between Knights and Elandsfontein, stage 2 of the new goods facilities at Elandsfontein, and the new administrative building for Kaserne.

The new railway line from Winternest to Mabopane, the new station for non-Whites at Belle Ombré and other facilities for the conveyance of passengers from the Tswana homeland to Pretoria are receiving special attention. Various other vast schemes to provide improved facilities for suburban commuters, especially non-Whites, are under way or being planned.

In the Cape Peninsula an interim scheme of improvements which includes link lines between Hazendal and Langa, Netreg and Lavis-town and Sarepta and Kuils River is estimated to cost R17,5 million. Stage 1 of a long-term scheme to quadruple the line between Salt River and Maitland, and sextuple it between Salt River and Cape Town which includes the remodelling of Maitland, Woodstock and Salt River stations, is estimated to cost R40 million.

To provide additional capacity and to relieve some of the pressure on Johannesburg station, two additional lines are required between Langlaagte and a point east of Braamfontein where a new terminal station is to be built for non-Whites. Expenditure of R14,3 million is envisaged.

Steady progress is being maintained on Durban’s new passenger station and accompanying facilities. December 1980 is the target date for completion of the project.

Sections of the main line through the Karoo, i.e. from De Aar to Touws River, are being used to maximum capacity. Improvements, including lengthening of loops and more sophisticated signalling, to the value of R21,6 million are therefore to be undertaken.

To increase track capacity for long ore trains to Newcastle and general traffic to and from Natal, the Union-Vooruitsig section is to be doubled at a cost of some R39,3 million.

The control centre and associated signalling equipment at Clairwood in the Booth-Reunion area were commissioned in April 1975. The provision of signalling equipment in the expanded marshalling yard at Bayhead is well advanced and when completed will rank amongst the largest concentrated interlocking systems in the world.

The installation of centralized traffic control between Wellington and Touws River is progressing satisfactorily and is due for completion in December 1976; a portion is already in use. Centralized traffic control was introduced recently between Burgersdorp and Queenstown as well as between Nelspruit and Lebombo and is proceeding well in the Witbank-Nelspruit section. The new power signal cabin at Salt River should be placed in service by February 1977.

Since 1966, when the replacement of departmental open wire telephone routes by coaxial cables was commenced, 5 970 kilometres of cable have been laid. The laying of a further 2 500 kilometres is well advanced and the work will be completed during the 1976-’77 financial year.

The departmental direct distance telephone dialling network is progressing well and it is already possible to contact, by direct dialling, a large number of departmental telephone numbers and exchanges throughout the Republic. This will mean a much improved service, and will enable the Railways to close many manually operated telephone exchanges.

Containerization of the country’s sea-borne traffic, another multi-million rand scheme, is proceeding apace and hon. members, especially those whose constituencies include or are in the neighbourhood of a major harbour, are no doubt aware of the extensive facilities being provided. Expenditure of R375 million up to the end of 1979 is envisaged to be able to cope with all requirements.

At Walvis Bay Harbour it has become necessary to effect extensive repairs to the quay-wall, which entail the reconstruction of berths 1, 2 and 3, and to cater for berthage of harbour craft, a jetty is to be provided. The total estimated cost is R5 million.

Provision is made in the Estimates for l976-’77 for the acquisition of 265 electric and 100 diesel locomotives. Also included are 620 main-line saloons, 130 suburban coaches and no less than 11 950 goods wagons of various types.

Campaign against Inflation

Prices of the majority of the Department’s purchases escalated considerably, particularly in the range of commodities to which the Railways is most sensitive. The extent of the increase is illustrated by the fact that for the period November 1974 to December 1975 the consumer price index increased by 12,7%, the wholesale price index by 17,6%, the SEIFSA labour index by 15,1% and the index for petro-chemical products by 38,9%. Furthermore, the abnormal increases which occurred in the prices of steel, coal and petroleum products since November 1974 resulted in the level of expenditure on these items having risen by 27,4, 37 and 42,5% respectively whereas an increase of almost 30% in electricity prices has been announced. These price increases adversely affect both capital expenditure and operating costs. The latest rises in steel, coal, electricity and fuel prices will result in additional expenditure on current account of approximately R70 million per annum.

The devaluation of the rand by 17,9% in September last year is also having a detrimental effect on the cost structure. Not only have prices of imported capital goods and components risen as a result, but an indirect cost-increasing effect on locally manufactured goods can be expected owing to the higher costs incurred on capital goods by manufacturers. The prevailing economic climate offers little hope of revenue being earned to the extent required to counteract increased costs. For this reason the collective campaign against inflation is fully supported and I would like to refer to some of the contributions made by the Department towards this end.

Cost-benefit studies are undertaken to ensure that capital and betterment schemes are viable. This approach is evident from the policy followed in respect of new railway lines which are only built if economically justified or guaranteed against operating losses.

In terms of the Anti-Inflation Manifesto, the Railways continues to expand the transportation infrastructure in order to eliminate cost-increasing bottlenecks. After reducing the original loan fund requirements for 1976-’77 departmentally by approximately R20 million, the requirements were subsequently further curtailed by R27 million. Any further reduction could not be considered as it would have seriously jeopardized expansion of essential infrastructure. The priority of schemes is carefully determined in accordance with the benefits to be derived.

With the levelling off in the economy, steps are being taken to avoid the under-utilization of manpower and equipment in harbours where the double-shift system has been introduced. At quays where two shifts cannot be employed advantageously, the reversion to single-shift working on an ad hoc basis is being considered. Where necessary, the number of staff is gradually and judiciously reduced, e.g. by not filling vacancies. The present economic slackness is being used to good advantage in the harbours by utilizing experienced staff to pay active and systematic attention to the various facets of cargo handling in order to eliminate any weaknesses and deficiencies. The accent is on training of staff in the work situation to obtain higher productivity.

Sunday and overtime working is restricted to a minimum and payments for January 1976 reflect a decrease of R3 million in comparison with previous months. Every facet of the Service in which manpower and equipment could possibly be used more efficiently, is being examined. Train and shunting services are being curtailed in accordance with reduced traffic. Commercial stations which are no longer justified by the volume of traffic are being closed and the activities concentrated at larger stations.

In order to avoid unnecessary expenditure for both the Railways and its customers, an intensified claims prevention campaign has been launched.

Improved productivity is achieved by simplifying and improving working methods, extensive use of computerized systems and controls, and by mechanising labour-intensive functions. Allow me to furnish a few examples: Each train is usually manned by a staff of three but on certain lines goods trains are at present manned by two servants only. During October 1975, 55% of the total number of goods trains was controlled in this way. Longer and heavier trains are hauled by diesel and electric locomotives, using less staff than is possible with steam locomotives. A saving in operating staff is also achieved by using modem train control methods such as centralized traffic control. All in all, productivity is being increased considerably.

Operating Results for 1975-’76

Judging from the earnings already taken into account, as well as traffic trends, revenue for the year is expected to be R1 854 798 000, i.e. R30 million higher than the estimate. However, notwithstanding the Department’s all-out fight against inflation, expenditure is expected to be some R100 million higher than the estimate with the result that the current financial year is expected to close with a deficit of R67,8 million instead of an estimated surplus of R6,4 million. This deficit will be financed from the Rates Equalization Fund.

Estimates for 1976-’77

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds during 1976-’77.

Main-line passenger traffic is expected to improve during 1976-’77, first and second class journeys by some 2% and third class journeys by approximately 5%. The estimates also provide for increases in respect of suburban traffic, viz. 2,5% and 3% for first and third class journeys respectively.

An increase of just over 5 million tons or 5,5% in goods traffic is budgeted for. The coming into service of Iscor’s new furnace at Newcastle in April 1976 will not only result in large additional tonnages of raw material being transported from inland sources to Newcastle but will also require the conveyance of considerable quantities of unprocessed steel from these Works to Iscor’s Vanderbijlpark Works. It is expected that exports of chrome ore will increase whilst iron and manganese ore exports will improve on the relatively low level set in 1975-’76.

The transport of agricultural produce is expected to increase only moderately, mainly as a result of a decline in maize exports. The conveyance of additional tonnages of machinery, petroleum products and iron and steel products is also envisaged.

Present indications are that as much as 9 million tons of coal will flow through Richards Bay Harbour in its first year of operation. Taking into account exports of 1,5 million tons through the existing facilities at Durban and the additional requirements of the local market, coal traffic for 1976-’77 is estimated at more than 37 million tons as compared with approximately 28 million tons in 1975-’76.

Import volumes for the ensuing financial year are not expected to decline drastically as compared with 1975-’76 whilst provision is made for a 5% growth in export volumes, exclusive of the coal exports through Richards Bay.

The expansion of the South African Airways’ fleet referred to earlier in my address, will capacity-wise place the national airline in a position to compete for its share of additional traffic which may be generated by the anticipated economic revival in the latter half of the financial year. In order to attract more passengers, an excursion fare is being introduced on the domestic services. It is consequently expected that the Airways will reflect a real growth rate of just over 10% in 1976-’77.

Total expenditure in respect of all Services for the financial year 1976-’77 is estimated at R2 211 432 000 and revenue at R2 012 426 000, which represents a shortfall of approximately R199 million. It stands to reason that steps will have to be taken to rectify this imbalance between revenue and expenditure and I am therefore reluctantly compelled to introduce tariff adjustments with effect from the commencement of the new financial year.

Rates Review

I shall now deal briefly with the main features of the proposed revision of rates and fares. The opportunity is again being taken to narrow the gap between high and low rates and to align rates more closely to costs. Hon. members will remember that this principle was accepted on the recommendation of the Schumann Committee appointed in 1962 to investigate Railway rating policy.

Based on the figures for the current financial year the revision of tariffs is expected to enhance the increasable revenue by 11,2%.

The following is a résumé of the more important proposals.

The fares structure for main line and suburban journeys will be rationalized. On main lines all return fares will in future be double the single fare. The effect of this arrangement will be that first and second-class main-line passenger fares will increase on average by 7,4% and third-class fares by 0,6%. The increases will be appreciably higher for longer distances.

On the suburban services the fares in respect of first-class season tickets will be increased on average by 2,2%. However, season tickets as such will be increased only in respect of journeys of more than 28 kilometres with percentages varying from 4,2 to a maximum of 20% on average.

Third class normal suburban fares will remain unchanged but the special resettlement fares which vary over distances from 18 kilometres in respect of single and return journeys and 23 kilometres for season tickets will be abolished in toto. These fares will be aligned with existing normal suburban third-class fares. On average the increase in resettlement fares will amount to 10% but actual increases will vary from 0,8% to 49,2%.

Hon. members are aware that resettlement fares as such are dealt with by the Interdepartmental Committee for the Conveyance of non-Whites to Resettlement Areas and that the Railways will derive no financial benefit from the revision of these fares. In fact, the subsidy paid by the Central Government will be reduced by the additional revenue obtained.

Parcels rates will be increased by 15%.

Rates for goods classified in tariff classes 1 to 10 will be increased with percentages varying on average from 8,9 to 17,2. On average the increase on high-rated traffic, will be 11,7%. Low-rated traffic, viz. traffic classified in tariff classes 11 to 15 will be increased with percentages varying on average from 16,4 to 19,8. The average increase for this group will be 17,4%. Over longer distances these increases will be higher than over shorter distances.

The special rates for iron and manganese ore conveyed from the Postmasburg area to Port Elizabeth for export will be increased by 20%.

Rates for coal and anthracite will be increased on average by 17,5%.

The rates for the conveyance of livestock, which at present cover only 51,2% of the cost of transport, will be increased by 50%. Even then a substantial proportion of transport cost will not be met.

Certain commodities presently being railed at uneconomic rates will be reclassified in order to make their conveyance more economic and a new basis of charging for goods with an unfavourable mass to volume ratio will be introduced.

Handling charges on low rated traffic will be increased by 5 c per 100 kg.

Demurrage charges on rail trucks will be raised by 30%.

Cartage charges will be increased by 15%. A rebate of 20% will be allowed at depots where deliveries after normal working hours are agreed upon.

Passenger fares on Road Transport Services will be increased on average by 20% and the special passenger fares which are at present from 10 to 50% below normal fares, by 30%. In the case of goods traffic, rates will on average be increased by 20%.

Harbour dues and charges will be increased by percentages varying from 3,8 to 37,5. The latter figure will apply where labour-intensive functions are involved.

Domestic air fares and air freight rates will be increased on average by 10%. It is, however, the intention to introduce return excursion fares for individuals. A discount of 20% on ordinary fares for travel in the standard class will be allowed. This discount will not apply to travel in the first class section of the Airbus aircraft which will come into operation towards the end of this year or in the first class section of the Boeing 707 and 747 aircraft operated over certain domestic sectors. Travel at the excursion fares will be restricted to specific flights which are normally not well patronized to ensure the best utilization of available capacity.

The rates for products conveyed by both pipelines will on average be increased by 13,7%.

The proposed adjustments in rates and tariffs are expected to yield additional revenue of R201,3 million. Total revenue for the 1976-’77 financial year is, therefore, estimated at R2 213 726 000 leaving a surplus of R2 294 000 on the year’s working.

Appreciation

In conclusion I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the Railway Commissioners, the General Manager and each member of the staff for their sustained efforts in the past year to keep the wheels turning, and I am convinced that their loyalty and devotion to duty will enable them to face with renewed vigour the challenges that will confront us in the year ahead.

I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. P. J. C. du Plessis who recently retired after serving as Railway Commissioner for 15 years. Mr. Du Plessis rendered valuable service during his term of office on the Railway Board. He has been succeeded on the Board by Mr. P. L. S. Aucamp, former member of Parliament for Bloemfontein East.

Tabling

I now lay on the Table a Memorandum setting out the estimated results of working for the financial year 1975-’76, and anticipated revenue and expenditure for the year 1976-’77, together with the latest traffic and other statistics.

I also lay on the Table Statements of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1977, and Statements of the Original and Revised Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1976.

Mr. Speaker, the shock waves which the hon. the Minister has initiated this afternoon will spread into every comer of South Africa and into the pockets of every citizen of South Africa, wherever he or she may live. It is unbelievable that at a time like this, a time when South Africa is fighting a critical inflation campaign, the hon. the Minister of Transport should so question the credibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs as he has done this afternoon.

In earlier debates this session we heard the optimism of both those hon. Ministers. We heard of the success of the anti-inflation campaign. We heard that the situation was being brought under control, that the rate of inflation had been reduced and that they were looking forward to an upturn, an upsurge in the second half of this year. We heard the hon. the Minister of Finance optimistically forecasting that we were over the hill and calling on the people of South Africa to help to make this possible. Of what use is it that the people of South Africa should pull in their belts, that they should make a contribution, when they find thrown at them, without even a word of apology, without even a sign of shame, a budget which is going to hit the very people with the least cushion potential left?

When one raises the suburban fares of the Bantu in the resettlement areas by an average of 10% and in some cases up to 20%, one is hitting at people who simply have no margin and no cushion left with which to meet it. And this money is not even going to the Railways. The 10% which is going to be wrung out of the Black commuters—which is going to be squeezed out of them so that they may continue to work and so that they may continue to survive somehow—is not even going to help the Railways. It is to help the central Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is to help another arm of Government. But the hon. the Minister of Transport is given the job of squeezing it out of these people.

There is another field where there is no cushion left, namely in the field of foodstuffs. We find an increase of 50% in the rail tariff for livestock.

You asked for it.

No, we did not ask for it. What we asked for is a rationalization …

The consumer does not pay these tariffs.

The consumer does not pay it? Does this naïve Minister not know that when he puts up railage rates by one cent on an item which costs one rand, everyone else gets on to the band-wagon? By the time the consumer pays, the one cent becomes 10% or more, because the one thing, as history has shown, which is exploited in order to raise prices, is the increase in Railway tariffs. Everyone, the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the retailer, the middleman, no matter who, uses the fact that rail tariffs have been increased even by a fraction, as an excuse for a wave of price increases throughout the country. The hon. the Minister knows this. He knows that Railway tariffs are the barometer which says to people: “The climate is right; climb in and put your prices up.” What happens to the industrialist, the businessman, who throughout South Africa has been told: “Absorb 30% of your increase in costs?’’ The Railways come to him and say: “Thirty per cent, be darned, we are pushing up your costs into the sky!” I repeat that the shock waves of this budget are going to reverberate through the length and breadth of South Africa and will hit at the budget of every single citizen. No one has been spared. We agree and we have accepted that rates should be rationalized, but then we have said that they should be subsidized. We shall come back … [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member laughs, but he wants certain sections of South Africa to subsidize the general welfare of South Africa. We say that when a socio-economic reason requires the carriage of traffic at uneconomic rates, which the hon. the Minister himself refers to as one of his three prerequisites to free competition, and when socio-economic reasons override business reasons, then it becomes the responsibility of the Government to carry it and not that of the Railways. We shall deal with this at length in the debate which will follow.

Before I move the adjournment of the debate, I want to pay one tribute, which I think has been earned, and that is in respect of the co-operation which the Railways have given to S.A. Defence Force from whom I have heard nothing but the highest praise. I shall exclude dining saloons for the moment—we shall talk about that on another occasion. The way in which the Railways met unforeseen, unexpected and often extremely difficult demands to move people over long distances at short notice, has drawn from those with whom I have talked and who are concerned with it, the highest compliments and the highest appreciation. I think it is only fair that on this occasion the same appreciation should be extended to the department.

That is about all one can appreciate in this budget. I think I shall have to look very hard to find anything else on which to congratulate the hon. the Minister. He has an increased expenditure of 20% this year, and now look at what he does to his tariffs for the coming year. What is he expecting? A complete breakdown in our economy; an average increase of 21,6% this year? He is asking for more than R200 million in additional revenue, but we shall deal with that later. I want to point out too that although we have had the Railways budget debate introduced in this House, we have not yet had the annual report of the General Manager for the last year. I can now understand why that has not been given to us, so that we could study the past year’s results.

It was tabled today.

Oh, tabled today! That is a lot of use on the day that the budget is introduced. To enable us to study this shock budget, this shocking budget, and to study the report, which has kindly been tabled today, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. member for Pinelands, in complete sincerity I believe, dealt with certain aspects concerning mental patients and mental illness. He referred on three occasions to the fact that such patients and the whole situation should be dealt with with a great deal of sensitivity. He referred to the victims of mental illness in terms of mentally handicapped and retarded people. This was the trend throughout his speech when he dealt with the subject of this Bill. We then had a contrast, which was shown by the hon. member for Houghton, because when she spoke on this Bill during the Second Reading, she—and I regret to say it—did not use the delicate terms used by the hon. member for Pinelands, whose example, I believe, she could do well to follow. In no less than three instances, she referred either to “mad” people or to “madness”. I believe that those terms should be relegated to the limbo of the lost.

I want to come to the Bill, because all the speakers to the left of me during this debate referred to the fact that there were further inroads into Press freedom. The hon. member for Parktown sought to move amendments during the Committee Stage of the Bill. I know the hon. member for Parktown as a journalist—and I do not say it in a disparaging way, but in a complimentary way—of the old school, one who abided by the ethics and code of ethics of his profession. I can remember him as far back as when he wrote a column in a Sunday newspaper under the nom de plume of Stephen La Rochelle. As a person who has always had a moderate, but liberal, outlook towards things, he sought in his articles—as I see it—to postulate for a perfect world. Times have changed since then however, and general standards have been lowered. I believe the code of ethics of human practice in general has been lowered. It also applies to a certain extent to the Press who try to keep in step with modem conditions. I believe that under present-day conditions, the written word is mightier than the truth. Under the changed circumstances of modem living, sensation and circulation have taken pride of place instead of objectivity and accuracy. While I realize that there are protections in that the organs who belong to the National Press Union have certain facilities; I believe that the objections in the main, which were made by the party to the left of me, were not valid in the sense that as we read this Bill and as the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech, there are restrictions but no prohibitions in regard to the terms of this particular Bill. I believe that the restrictions, not prohibitions, are in the interests of the public themselves. I believe that they are in the interests of people who happen to be patients of these institutions. They are in the interests of the people who have relatives who have to live in the world outside and they are in the interests of people who might one day become unfortunate enough to require attention or care of these institutions. I believe it is in their interests that this Bill has been formulated with an idea to protect them, but at the same time, to give the news media their right and freedom to criticize, to expose, and if they are able, to establish unequivocally and to their complete satisfaction that things are not what they should be. It is bearing in mind these factors that we on this side of the House support the Government with the passing of the Bill which is now before us.

Mr. Speaker, as a journalist with 40 years’ experience I have to disagree with my hon. friend from Berea. I do not accept that Press standards have been lowered in recent years. Of course there are exceptions, but by and large, and I say this without any hesitation, and I think this will be borne out by any responsible newspaperman, the South African public can be proud of its newspapers—by and large; English language and Afrikaans language. I believe the standards of these newspapers will bear comparison with the best in the Western world. More than that one cannot say and I defy anybody to deny it. The hon. member for Berea argues that the restrictions in this Bill are in fact in the interest of the public, but I say exactly the opposite for one simple reason, and that is that I believe that it is absolutely essential, in the interest of these institutions and of the people in them, that the spot-light of responsible publicity should constantly be shed on these places and their administration. Once you restrict the freedom of newspapers to do this, I believe you will be drawing a veil over their activities and you will be running into an area of real danger. [Interjections.] Of course we are talking about accuracy and the responsibility all the time. Sir, I had in fact not intended taking part in the debate in the Third Reading of what I call this unnecessary, illogical and restrictive Bill, particularly after—and I am sorry to say this—the absurd contention yesterday by the hon. the Minister that my amendment about excepting NPU members from the punitive clause of this Bill would have the effect of authorizing the publication of false information. If I understood him correctly, that is what he said. This is tantamount to saying that if you are opposed to capital punishment, you are in fact in favour of murder. This is the kind of level to which this argument comes down. But let me come back to my real basic objections to this Bill.

Throughout all the stages I have argued about the practical difficulties of an editor in taking what the Bill calls “reasonable steps” to verify what information is false and what is not. It is absurd to suggest, and I reject the contention, that we are pleading for the right of newspapers to publish false information. No decent newspaper editor publishes false information, simply because to do that would be self-defeating.

Then what are you worried about?

What I have argued is that in regard to this matter of what is false and what is not false, there is in fact, particularly in this kind of context, a large grey area where it is impossible to say what is false and what is true. There are areas which you simply cannot define. I have now entered this debate again because, as it happens, new facts reached me today about the article on Horace Morgan published in Scope, facts which illustrates my point and which, incidentally, formed an important part of the Minister’s case. This is what the editor of this magazine writes to me, and it is hardly necessary for me to say that this was an unsolicited letter. [Interjections.] This is what he writes—

That is the end of this quotation from this letter. Now let me say, Sir, so that there can be no doubt about this, that I hold no particular brief for anybody. Quite obviously I have no means of judging the accuracy of the facts in this article. But the important thing is, that there is a vital principle at stake in this whole issue. As I said yesterday, I regard it as my duty as a citizen to protect the rights of people who want to publish what they believe to be true and in the public interest. I have quoted from the editor’s letter here only to illustrate my point about the very real practical problems involved in the implementation of legislation of this kind. This is what I would like to know from the Minister: If a newspaper or a journal takes all the precautions, such as those that were outlined in the letter from the editor of Scope, if he takes all those precautions and more, and he still meets with the refusal of officials to comment or to provide additional information, as happened in this particular case, is it the Minister’s intention that the new law should preclude publication of such articles? Sir, this is the kernel of the whole issue, and I am sorry to say, with great respect, that this issue has just not been seen in its right perspective in this whole debate. This is the kernel of the whole issue. Will the hon. the Minister tell us what he thinks—yes or no? Sir, if he says he does envisage the preclusion of publication under these circumstances, where people have taken all precautions and all this trouble and have still failed to get any kind of official help at all—and this, as we told him in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage was a very natural experience of all newspapers—then one’s worst fears and one’s worst forebodings about this piece of legislation will have been realized. If on the other hand the hon. the Minister does not envisage such preclusion of publication, then he must tell newspaper and magazine editors precisely how they must set about getting their facts verified when officials refuse to talk, as happened in this case which I quoted, and which, as I have said to him before, has happened to us down the years. Will the Minister tell us exactly what the position is? In any case, I think it is important that the Minister should state his intentions, because it is going to be important, when the first case comes before the courts of law, that the court should know precisely what the legislatures’ intentions were when it enacted this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I wish the House would realize the importance of the principle which is at stake in this Bill. It is nothing less than the right of the public—forget about newspapers for the moment—to have access to information to which they are entitled, because it is in the public interest, information which has been responsibly collected and presented in good faith. Sir, it is for that reason that we in these benches have fought this provision every stage, and it is one of the reasons why we are so disappointed that the United Party has not seen fit to associate itself with us in combating this further act of secrecy in Government administration. This is a retrogressive step, and we are sorry that we have had to fight this battle alone.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown said he had 40 years’ experience of journalism. We are dealing here with legislation which seeks to protect sick people. I have 20 years’ experience of sick people and on more than one occasion during that time I have sick people who were utterly depressed as a result of reports which had appeared in the Press, reports for the sake of sensation and information which had been distorted, no matter whether it concerned an illness, the procedure, or the treatment, or the institution in which that person was a patient. On more than one occasion I have seen more damage done to such a patient because of this than by the illness itself. I should like to ask the hon. member for Parktown whether he, when he complained about the words “institution or a part of an institution’’ in the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, took great pleasure in the film “Last Grave at Dimbaza”. Through distortion one is able to create the impression that there is suppression and injustice without having to prove it. The hon. member must listen to me. This legislation deals with the protection of people who are suffering from a particular illness and who are in a special institution. The only way in which the public can be protected from false information is by means of legislation of this nature. It does not deal with any other information. Any person is able to obtain information—from the Minister and from the superintendent or from whoever it is—and he can disseminate that information.

If they are unable to obtain it?

The hon. member can think of only one thing and that is “the right to know” of the Press. This theme is constantly discernable on the part of the Progressive Party. They adopted this theme, “the right to know” after Watergate in America. Now they want the people to know everything and the Press to be enable to broadcast everything. We are dealing here with sick people, however, and the medical profession will not allow the fine service rendered to the public and sick people to be prejudiced in this way by false reports, whether in the Press or wherever it may be. During the Second Reading we discussed the whole principle of protection for these people, and neither will the legal profession, which is also concerned with this, allow their procedures to be derogated and questioned when sick people, who are unable to protect themselves, are exposed merely to give the Press and certain organizations an opportunity to disparage them and will harm not only the sick people themselves, but also of those who have to treat them, as well as the judiciary. I reject the opinion of the hon. member for Parktown in its entirety. This legislation will serve as a stimulus for those who deal with sick people and for those who have these sick people in their community to allow them to be admitted to these institutions where they know they will be treated in a decent and honourable manner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in support of the hon. member for Parktown.

He needs support.

I support what he has said, as I did in the Second Reading. The arguments used by the hon. member who has just sat down, are not valid at all in this case, as it is not a question of our not wishing to protect the interests of people who are mentally sick. The whole question is the ability of the Press to expose abuses where they exist.

They have got that right.

They have not got that right, because the amending Bill lays a very heavy burden on the Press to try to ascertain the truth of the situation, and where it is impossible for them to get positive proof, the onus is on them to show that they have obtained the correct information. From now on no abuses are likely to be exposed by the Press.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that? I do not understand the reasoning of the hon. member. The duty of the Press is to expose abuses, but here it is being made impossible for the Press to do this unless they are prepared to run the risk of very heavy damages against them by the State in a criminal case, as happened in the case of the Department of Prisons v. The Rand Daily Mail, where, as I have mentioned, this newspaper suffered heavy losses, not so far as the sentence was concerned, but as far as the costs of fighting the case were concerned. You are not going to get a newspaper in the country which will now take the chance of exposing abuses that take place in mental institutions. Surely hon. members will admit that such abuses are possible. I do not for one moment condone the articles which were written and which have roused the ire of the hon. the Minister to the extent that he comes with this all-encompassing Bill to restrict the freedom of the Press. I do not in any way condone those articles. But there is nothing to prevent the people running those institutions and who feel that they have been libelled, from taking those people to court and suing them in the normal way. That is the remedy at their disposal. I believe that that is sufficient and that the hon. the Minister should not expect this House to pass legislation which will put mental institutions in exactly the same category as prisons and will make it impossible for the newspapers to expose abuses which may take place in those institutions. I have asked the hon. the Minister whether he knows of a single article about conditions in prisons or an article which reflects badly on conditions in prison, that has appeared in the South African Press since the case against the Rand Daily Mail was concluded. I am convinced that even if you do a lot of research, you will find no such case, because it is just not worth the risk as far as the newspapers are concerned.

I want to say one or two other things. First of all, as far as the hon. member for Berea is concerned, he will see if he takes the trouble to check, that when I was referring to “mad” people I was referring to it in the context of the way in which people were considered and treated in the middle ages. I said that in those days people who were considered mad—and that was the term that was used, as nobody talked in genteel terms like “mental illness” in those days—were chained and brutally treated and they were thrown into prison. That was the whole impression which I was trying to convey. I also said that fortunately things had changed. Today nobody acts in that way. One of the reasons why we have advanced in this field is because of the exposure over the years, of abuses of people who were suffering from mental illness when they were treated as “mad”, as the devil’s people, as lepers who had to be locked away and kept away from the general public.

As far as the other point is concerned, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. One of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill is the article which appeared in the rather ill-named journal called Peace and Freedom. It was a series of articles which appeared in that journal—that has galvanized the hon. the Minister into activity in this respect. Scope is the other periodical which has been mentioned, and the hon. member for Parktown has dealt very adequately with that. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why it is that, if he feels so strongly about the organization that produces this journal—that is the Scientologists—he has taken no action in terms of the Amendment Act which was passed in 1974, I think it was. That Act gives the hon. the Minister the right to take action against any organization which purports to give psychiatric treatment to people. He can act against organizations or individuals not on a medical register that give diagnosis and treatment to people suffering from mental illness. If I remember correctly, there was a good deal of discussion at that time and the point was brought forward in this House that many of the churches were giving solace and advice to people who were going through difficulties, and who were suffering from some sort of mental imbalance, and that such practices might very well fall within the ambit of this Act. It was pointed out, however, that the Act applied only to unregistered churches, or associations which practised for gain, and which gave this sort of advice for gain. All of us in this House were bombarded by telegrams, phone calls and letters from people belonging to the Scientologists to ask whether they were excluded.

Sir, what is the position? That Act was passed two years ago. If the hon. the Minister is so concerned about it, will he please tell the House whether he has taken, or is contemplating, any action against the people for whom this measure was introduced? I am interested to know why he goes in this roundabout way and affects the whole wide interests of the freedom of the Press rather than to take the action which he is able to take in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Act of 1974.

They are two entirely different matters.

Well, they may be, but all the same this can be tackled in that way. It is an indirect way of tackling it, I admit, but has any action been taken? Presumably the organization which puts out these articles knows something about the treatment of mental disease, or purports to know something about the treatment of mental disease. If they are stopped from functioning in that direction, they will soon not be able to put out these articles. This is the whole point that I am making.

No, you are wrong.

The hon. the Minister can take this step. If he is so anxious to curb this organization, why does he not use the powers that he already has in terms of the Medical and Dental Amendment Act, instead of bringing in an amending Bill which is going to affect the general freedom of the Press?

Sir, I entirely support the hon. member for Parktown, and we shall be opposing the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words in reply to the remarks by the hon. member for Parktown, who expressed some regret that the United Party had not seen fit to support him in his

It was a very gentle regret.

Yes, it was a gentle regret which he expressed. If one could accept as justifiable what has been argued by the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. that the Bill as it now stands will make it impossible to expose any abuses in connection with mental institutions, we would have supported the hon. member for Parktown, but the Bill does not make it impossible to expose abuses.

Virtually impossible.

The hon. member is now qualifying what she said. She stated that this Bill makes it impossible to expose abuses. Sir, an abuse means that there is in existence an abuse, and if a publication is stating the fact of an existing abuse, there is no penalty whatsoever that can be imposed on that publication. The only thing that is being requested—I am sure the hon. member for Parktown does not really think that this is an unreasonable request to an editor—is that reasonable steps are taken to ascertain or to verify the accuracy of a report before it is published. Sir, I would say that is normal editorial procedure. I accept that reputable editors of newspapers in South Africa do take reasonable steps to ascertain the accuracy of a report before it is published. That is all they are being asked to do in this case. Then only are they hindered if, in fact, the report is proved to be false by the State in a prosecution. It must be proved to be false before there is any question as to what reasonable steps were taken or otherwise.

For that simple reason we support the measure as it was introduced by the hon. the Minister, and for the same reason we do not support the amendment as suggested by the hon. member for Parktown. We do not read this, or see it in the exaggerated light in which the hon. member for Houghton has presented it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the hon. member for Green Point finally put everything in a nutshell. There is no need to regard this legislation as though it is purely aimed at persecuting Scientologists. This I stated clearly during the Second Reading. The legislation deals with a campaign against the Department which is of a persecutory nature and began many years ago. This does not only deal with a campaign which is being waged by one or two publications. The publications concerned have increased. There are many of them. Front organizations have already been established from which the contamination originates, and by which a Government institution which renders psychiatric services to less privileged people is being torpedoed with information which is false, partly true or libellous or semi-libellous. Who is expected to institute a libel action? Is it the person who is being prejudiced and who is out of his senses? Since you mentioned the common law, you should now tell me quite clearly who should institute the libel action? Mr. Speaker, we simply can no longer allow publications of this nature, which also affect other publications—whether it was possible to persecute some of them is irrelevant now—to discredit and harm in an irresponsible manner the people charged with the preservation of our mental health. We have, for instance, psychiatrists, trained scientists, who have studied for at least 12 years. It cannot be allowed that they should from time to time, and constantly, come under fire and that the confidence the public has in them, is undermined in a mean and libellous manner. The confidence the public has in that service, is being destroyed. The public is being told: “Come to us. We are the people who can help you. You can cure yourself by simply reading Total Freedom.”

Permission can be obtained from the Secretary of the department for the publication of sketches and photographs of and articles on institutions. These are reasonable steps from which the Press Union has already been excluded. However, we are not dealing here with false articles. For example, would the Press Union itself—the Press Union which has a code of ethics—have liked to be excluded from publishing of false articles, articles which are deliberately false, while no reasonable steps were taken to determine whether there was any substance in a report …? What are “reasonable steps”?

†I have said twice already: What is wrong with phoning the Secretary of the Department, the Co-ordinator of Medical Services, or even the Minister? Such an action could be regarded as “reasonable steps”. Any other steps taken to find out whether a story has any substance, can be regarded as “reasonable steps”.

*However, since we are dealing with a very delicate matter here, I should have thought that no responsible institution would fail to take reasonable steps to determine whether the information it obtained, was true or not. The Press regards itself as a responsible body, and I myself said that the Press had up till now acted in a responsible manner. I am now referring to publications which are members of the Press Union. Up till now members of the Press tried to determine in all cases what the real position was before writing articles. Numerous articles have been written by members of the Press Union. This the other people did not do however. At the end of the Third Reading debate we are now being told that the people who published Horace Morgan’s story, did make an attempt to obtain information. Is this the time for us to decide about the matter? Do we have to pass judgment on it now? Perhaps tomorrow or the day after, but not today. There is no way in which to control what was written there.

Why do you include the Press Union now? You say they have always behaved in a responsible manner.

The hon. member is talking too soon now. Yesterday he came along with an amendment. He is an hon. member who is concerned about the Press. The effect of his amendment would, however, have been that the Secretary for Health be authorized to grant consent for the publication of which are not true articles.

Oh, no!

Apparently you did not read it well enough yourself. This is what it amounts to. His amendment wants authority to be granted to a member of the Press Union … [Interjections.] … No, wait a second! A very logical deduction from his amendment amounts to a member of the Press Union being granted the authority to publish articles which are not true because members of the Press Union are excluded. If one were to substitute section 2(b)(iii), members of the Press Union would be excluded from that subsection which lays down that people publishing articles which are not true could be punished. In other words, the members of the Press Union should be excluded and could therefore publish articles which are not true if they want to. [Interjections.] Should only the Press have the authority? For that reason I said this was a reflection on the Press. After all, the Press Union has a code which its members can and, in fact, do comply with.

†I quite agree with the hon. member for Berea. I also have an aversion to the terms “madness” and “lunatic asylum” and I think it is high time hon. members refrained from using those terms. Those days are past. I trust I shall also have the co-operation of the Progressive Party. We do not live in those times any more.

I was referring to the middle ages, and you know it.

I beg your pardon.

She is back where she belongs—in the middle ages.

In the middle ages they were called “mad” and chained up.

I did not know you were that old.

It is still being said, especially by the hon. member for Houghton, that no newspaper would like to write about institutions of this nature. It is alleged that matters such as these will not be made public. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that it is in any case, not desirable for patients’ illnesses and their condition to be bandied about in the Press. There are aspects of these people’s illnesses and family history which the Press has no right to know. As the wife of a doctor the hon. member for Houghton should know this. Although these people have a curator ad litem to manage their affairs, these people should not be subjected to articles which broadcast the history of their mental condition in the Press. I have no argument with the Press Union, and I have never had any argument with them. However, the department is waging a struggle against people who are trying to belittle our psychiatric services, people who are constantly trying to create the impression that undesirable things are happening to our mentally ill patients. We especially disapprove of articles which reflect upon the treatment patients receive, without reasonable steps being taken to determine whether the details in that article are true or not. Articles of this nature are a sustained effort to undermine the public’s confidence in a service which is absolutely indispensable to nearly 30 000 patients in this country. I would be shamefully neglecting my responsibility if I did not ensure that this kind of thing was not allowed.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C.W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

I merely want to point out once again that this amendment is the result of very urgent discussions with the sawmill industry. The industry had certain reservations about the original clause. I can assure the hon. House that this amendment has been very carefully considered and that it is moved in the spirit of accommodating the sawmill industry as far as their reservations are concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

The reasons which apply to my amendment on clause 3, also apply to this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised with the hon. the Minister the question of employees of the State who will be going over to the new company. I asked him what the conditions of employment of those employees would be in the new company, e.g. their position with regard to pensions. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can enlighten us in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question in regard to subsection (1)(b), which reads—

What we really want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether it is his intention that this should be a genuine partnership—we will come to this again in later clauses—between the Foundation on the one hand and his department on the other, and whether, when it comes to the formation of the board in terms of this clause, the term “independent member” means independent in the sense that that person who will in effect be the deciding factor, shall be free from any pressure from the Foundation on the one hand or from the department on the other hand. In essence we are asking the hon. the Minister whether the chairman of the board is going to be independent in the true sense of the word, i.e. in the sense that he can make up his own mind as to the best course to follow.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Mooi River, the position is that staff will be seconded to the new company for a period of six months. After that it will be for the staff themselves to decide whether they are prepared to continue to work for the company or whether they would rather stay in the service of the department. All the necessary arrangements regarding pensions, and so forth, will be made with the new company in collaboration with those staff who are prepared to work for it. I hope that that clears up the matter for the hon. member.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to know whether the chairman, who is to be appointed by the Minister, will be free from pressure and truly independent. I find this sort of question very interesting. Does the hon. member know of anybody who is really and truly independent?

Yes.

All I can say is that here we have someone in mind who is regarded as a person who can act in a truly independent way. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in practice even a truly independent person will nevertheless have to listen to both sides of any particular matter. There are two parties involved in this Bill. I want to assure the hon. member that, as far as is humanly possible, we shall get the best man available, a man who will be able to act independently and to stand up to any reasonable pressure. We have an outstanding man in mind as chairman.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with subsection (2) of clause 8. It reads as follows—

I expressed the opinion that the Minister is being given extra-ordinary powers in that he can summarily dismiss members of the board. I want to ask whether such dismissal will take place as a result of discussions with or instructions from the majority of the board, or whether it will take place in terms of the prerogative given to the Minister in terms of this provision?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member looks at clause 5(1)(a) he will see that members of the board will include—

and that in terms of subsection (1)(b)—

In other words, three members of the board are appointed by the Minister. Surely, it is clear that the Minister should also accept responsibility for the dismissal of such a member if a member appointed by him does not come up to expectations. I hope this answers the question of the hon. member for Bryanston. From the nature of the case these will not be people appointed by the other party, but only people appointed by the Minister and who have to see to the interests of the State. I do not believe it is necessary to consult the other party if the Minister wants to dismiss people appointed by him.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister what the intention of this clause was. It is simply that the State and the Foundation as equal partners will make equal sums of money available under equal conditions, or is there a possibility or an intention that one or another of the parties—presumably in this case it is more likely to be the State—might be called upon to put up more money in the form of a loan than the other party, presumably the Foundation? The question is very simple: Is it the intention that both partners should put up similar amounts of money on similar terms and conditions?

Mr. Chairman, the idea is that both parties will put up the same amount of money.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 16:

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

New clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister to whom the shares may be transferred. The State has the right to purchase shares of the Hans Merensky Foundation, but is there a third person who is also being considered?

No, a third person is not being considered. I do not know why the hon. member for Mooi River thinks this. The position is that the other party who holds shares has to be consulted if one of the parties wants to sell shares. The shares he wants to sell first have to be offered to the other party. No consideration has been given to the possibility of a third party becoming involved, except of course, if one of the parties does not wish to purchase the shares offered.

Is a third party excluded?

No, it is possible that there may be a third party, but this is not probable. If the Merensky Foundation should want to sell shares, the State would probably want to buy those shares. The opposite would probably also be the case. However, the possibility is not excluded that it may happen, because of some circumstance or other, that a third party will enter into this.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister what, in fact, this clause means. I am particularly concerned with the phrase “divisible profits shall be divided pro rata between the holders of the shares”. In a normal sense I can quite understand that, but I did ask the hon. the Minister a question in this regard during the Second Reading debate. Profits are normally determined after tax has been paid. Whether or not this company will pay tax is irrelevant, because interest will be charged against the profits. Is clause 18 simply to be read in conjunction with the immediately subsequent clause, clause 19? Otherwise I do not see how the loan can be repaid.

Mr. Chairman, I am not altogether certain of the position. The hon. member refers to clause 18 which provides—

Perhaps this clause is somewhat superfluous. However, I did not argue with the draftsmen of the legislation about it, because it is only normal for a person to receive a dividend in proportion to his share-holding. However, the hon. member also referred to the repayment of a loan. A loan which has been made will, of course, be repaid in the way determined by the board or in terms of the provisions under which the loan was made—for instance, that a certain share of the profits is to be repaid over a certain period of time. That part of the loan would naturally have to be repaid first, before profits may be appropriated or dividends may be declared, if this is what the conditions provide. In my opinion the clause is not in conflict with that principle. In the Afrikaans version the clause mentions “verdeelbare winste”.

What are they?

Let us look at the English version. The English version refers to “divisible profits”. Divisible profits, therefore, are the profits which are available when all obligations have been met. I trust that this is clear.

Mr. Chairman, it is not clear, and perhaps I can help the hon. the Minister to clear his mind. The profits of a company are appropriated for various purposes.

That I know.

The hon. the Minister says he knows that. As I read it, this clause means that all the profits of the company to be appropriated are to be divided pro rata between the shareholders. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is how the clause reads. However, the question of the hon. member for Johannesburg North remains: If all the profits are to be taken and divided pro rata between the shareholders, how will the loans ever be repaid? The loans must be repaid from profits. They are not repaid before the profits are determined, but from profits. If all the profits are to be divided between the two shareholders pro rata, as this clause appears to say … [Interjections.] What are the “divisible profits”? This is the very question we are asking. Will the hon. the Minister define for us the term “divisible profits”? What are they?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should split hairs on what divisible profits in fact are. It is after all the normal practice of any company which has made a profit to make provision for reserves, something which is perhaps not necessary in this case. A company should, from its profits, also make provision for directors’ fees, etc. The company then decides further how the remaining profit should be divided. The hon. member suggested that he was one of the few members who knows something about matters of this kind. In the clause specific reference is made to “divisible profits”. This is a matter on which the board of directors should decide. If they have raised a loan, they should apply part of the company’s profit for the repayment of the loan according to the agreement. The repayment of the loan does not form part of the operating costs and consequently the profits should be applied towards the repayment of the loan. One could perhaps extend the clause so that the board of directors would know exactly how they should apply the profits and should solve other problems, but this is not desirable. To my mind the clause is merely aimed at providing that should any profits remain after their obligations have been met, such profits should be equally divided. I do not want to argue now and make too many changes in the legislation, but I think that the department will agree with me that we could have omitted this clause. It is after all normal procedure that profits are divided in a certain manner according to the opinion of the directors.

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. the Minister not think that the word “divisible” should be “distributable”?

It makes it worse.

I did not insert that word. [Interjections.] The word “divisible” was inserted by the people who drafted the Bill. We can argue about it, but I think the idea of “verdeelbare winste” means “distributable profits” in English although it has been translated as “divisible profits”. I think it is the acceptable expression which is used in Afrikaans. Perhaps we are here dealing with an unfortunate translation into English.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this matter has to be straightened out. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister’s attitude that we are dealing with a board of directors who will know what they are going to do. This House is now being asked to give that board of directors certain powers. I think the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has hit on the problem here. It is simply a question of translation. It is quite obvious that this Bill was drafted in Afrikaans, and the term “die verdeelbare winste” should be translated, I submit, as “the distributable profits”. Finally, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider moving in the Other Place an amendment to the English text to substitute for the word “divisible” the word “distributable”. That will then make the position absolutely clear and there will be no ambiguity whatsoever.

I hope that when I have finished dealing with the hon. member’s point, the hon. member for Johannesburg North will also be satisfied. I am prepared to do this. I am also learning something here, Sir. I thought “verdeelbare winste” and “divisible profits” meant the same thing, but if it should be “distributable”, we shall correct this in the Other Place. I undertake to do this.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen on my right are making matters worse by suggesting the words “the distributable profits”. I would suggest that the way out of the dilemma for the Minister would be, before going to the Other Place, actually to consider the word “the”. Reference is made to “the divisible profits” in the sense of meaning the whole. In the case of both “the divisible profits” and “the distributable profits” the situation is being made worse, and the only way out for the Minister, I suggest, is simply to say that he will look at the point we have raised in terms of clause 19, which clause 18 is subject to, and that he is going to set up an appropriate fund so that the loans can be repaid.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, we have a provision here in terms of which the hon. the Minister is asking this House to provide that all State land which has been set aside by the State for the purposes of its sawmill known as the Weza State Sawmill shall pass over and vest in the name of this company. Now I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us a little more detail about what exactly it is intended will be passed over to the company. Those of us who know Weza know that this is a vast complex. There is the forestry section and there is the sawmill section. A certain amount of it is privately owned or, if not privately owned, is certainly on long lease. I refer to certain trading concessions in that complex, known as Weza township, which are on long lease. How much of that complex is it intended will be handed over? Is it only the immediate precinct of the sawmill itself, the yards used for stacking timber and loading and off-loading the stores, etc., or will a number of the houses be handed over as well? Will the properties I have referred to, the trading enterprises, be handed over to this new company? If the answer to my third question is in the affirmative, then will the Minister tell us what is going to be the position regarding the leases of those persons who at the moment have occupation of these properties.

Sir, the position is that the 20 ha of land on which the Weza State Sawmill is situated will enable these people to operate their sawmill industry. In response to an inquiry from the hon. member for Mooi River yesterday, I said the houses would be leased. They are in the forests, etc. Apparently the hon. member was not here yesterday, but now he is referring to trading rights. According to the department those trade rights are not included. They are just outside the sawmill area, and will therefore not be relevant. They are not included in this area.

How many houses?

Now the hon. member wants to know how many houses. I said the houses which are to be used by the employees are not included in the 20 ha. The company has to rent those houses from the department, as would be the position in any other case.

So no houses are included?

No houses are included. It is the site of the sawmill as such which is included in the 20 ha area.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, clause 21 provides for the transfer of certain property and liabilities to the company. I would submit that some of the liabilities of the Weza State Sawmill and of the Clan Sawmill will include liabilities to employees. There are pension funds, certainly as far as the Weza sawmill is concerned, and possibly also as far as the Clan sawmill is concerned. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what provision has been made regarding employees of these two sawmills? Are they to be taken over by this company? What is happening to their pension rights? I know that the hon. member for Mooi River asked this question in the Second Reading, but the Minister replied that he was unaware of the details. I wonder whether he can give us more details this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I have already furnished the details. The hon. member for Mooi River raised this again this afternoon and I explained to him what the position was. I would suggest to the hon. member not to ask these questions when he has not been in the House to take note of the proceedings.

With respect to the hon. the Minister, when he dealt with clause 5 he was dealing with the employees who would be seconded to be members of the board. I am not referring to members of the board; I am referring to the employees of the mill. What is the position in regard to them? There are certain liabilities of the Weza State Sawmill and of the Clan sawmill regarding these employees. Are those liabilities going to be taken over? Is this new company going to assume responsibility for the staff? What arrangements have been made regarding the staff?

I was not referring to the directors under clause 5. I did explain it at the time.

*I suppose I had better explain this again. The department’s staff who are employees of Weza sawmill are seconded to the new company for a period of six months. They must then decide whether they are going to work for the new company and the new company must then arrange the pension and other facilities for them. If they are not satisfied, they remain in the service of the State and the State transfers them to various other places where there would be similiar work for them. As far as the other company’s employees are concerned, it is of course their concern and we are not going to express an opinion on this. That new company should come to an agreement with the people of the Merensky Trust who are being employed by the other sawmills. I presume it would be on the same basis. The Merensky Trust has other sawmills as well. But I do not think it is our responsibility to be concerned about the people that the new company will now be employing. This is the same answer I have already given to the hon. member for Mooi River and I trust that it is now clear to the hon. member.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister about the transfer of the property. Who will be expected to bear the cost of the transfer duty? How is transfer duty going to be ascertained?

The usual procedure is that the buyer, the new company, will have to pay the transfer duties.

The Government?

No, not the Government; the new Weza Company. That is the usual procedure.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

I raised the matter yesterday evening with the hon. the Minister as to whether the accounts of this new company which will be laid on the Table of the House will eventually be open to debate during the Vote of the hon. the Minister. In reply I was told: “Ja, moontlik onder die Pos.” I would like reassurance from the hon. the Minister that the reports of the company laid on the Table of the House will be properly the subject of debate under the Minister’s Vote so that we can keep an eye on the matter and see how it progresses, because we are very interested indeed in this new creation which has come about for the first time as far as I know, where the State and private enterprise are going into a joint commercial undertaking. I should like the assurance of the Minister on that point.

Mr. Chairman, the answer is “yes”. It could also be raised on other occasions as in the no-confidence and budget debates and specifically under the Minister’s Vote.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

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

1. (1) On page 15, in line 58, to omit “or of any other law relating to companies”;
2. (2) on page 15, in line 61, to omit “or other law”;
3. (3) on page 17, to omit subsection (3);
4. (4) on page 17, in line 7, to omit “this section” and to substitute “subsection (2)”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would give me an indication whether this business is going to enter into competition with private enterprise. When I say “me”, I say it because I am the member of Parliament for the constituency in which this business operates. I ask whether this business is going to enter into competition, because I see that not all the products are necessarily going to be taken up by the State. There may well be a surplus which may have to be sold privately. What is the pricing policy of this company going to be, and how will this affect the sawmillers in the immediate area? This mill is going to draw on the big State forests and most probably on its own forests as well and will, I should think, produce a greater amount of timber now than it produced before. So I would like the reassurance from the hon. the Minister that this business will in no way be in competition with private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, the Weza mill has previously been in competition with another mill in the private sector, i.e. the Clan mill. There were only these two mills in the district of Alfred which obtained their stock from the State forests. It was then decided that it would be in the interest of both these two mills to amalgamate because not one of the two, as I said in my Second Reading speech, had sufficient volume—the private enterprise in particular had a very small volume—to do proper business there. It was therefore decided to amalgamate the two and, consequently, the present legislation was introduced. Therefore, there are no other concerns which draw timber from the forests of the Department of Forestry in that region. For that reason one mill is being established by amalgamating the State and the private entrepreneur so that this one company now renders the necessary services. This is what it is all about, and that is why the Bill has been amended so that only the district of Alfred can be served by the company. The people in the sawmill industry were afraid that the company was going to do business throughout Natal. For that reason we agreed to amend the Bill. The idea is merely to make proper use of the forests in the district of Alfred. I am therefore unable to tell the hon. member that there is going to be no competition.

Products are going to be supplied from this area and this will obviously bring about competition. However, there are no other mills which draw their supplies from the same source and which could therefore be detrimentally affected by this measure. I hope the hon. member now has clarity in his own mind as far as the set-up there is concerned. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of any other mills, but my information is that there are only these two mills, and these are now being amalgamated to form the Weza Timber Company.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amount of time spent on the discussion of the Second Reading of this Bill is indicative of the interest which all South Africans show in the affairs of this giant corporation, Iscor. We on this side of the House do not want to take up much more time of either the hon. the Minister or hon. members of the House. However, we do believe that we should record the fact that Iscor requires an enormous amount of capital to keep it a viable proposition, that it is currently showing a loss and that its finance charges are so tremendous that they are wiping out the net trading profits. These facts are all known to the House. We know of course that Iscor as a State corporation cannot have its finances questioned in detail across the floor of the House. We do express the hope, however, that discussion of Iscor’s affairs would be allowed in future under the hon. the Minister’s Vote.

We would like to tell the hon. the Minister that he said that we were unjustified in criticizing him for not having motivated the Second Reading of the Bill. We merely want to say that, when the Iron and Steel Industry Bill came up in 1974, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor showed great courtesy to the House by laying out the programme for Iscor in detail for the next ten years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister stands in a fiduciary capacity to the general public of this country in so far as Iscor is concerned. The responsibility of Iscor as a public corporation falls—a fact which I am sure the hon. the Minister will accept—on the hon. the Minister’s shoulders in so far as it falls anywhere. As we said during the Second Reading debate, the Minister’s predecessor made that point very clear when he said—

This is in essence what this Bill is about. Of course, the actual increase in Iscor’s issued or paid-up capital, if past practices are anything to go by, may well take place in a number of bites at the cherry rather than one single injection.

I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would certainly not have come forward with this Bill if there were not present an intention on the part of the Government at some period of time or different periods of time in the future, to subscribe for all the additional ordinary B shares which is set out in clause 1 of the Bill and which, in effect, amounts to the creation of an increase in the authorized capital. As I have said, it makes no difference if the Government intends doing it as one bite or as a number of bites at the cherry. It is therefore important that the general public should be aware of the sums involved, because, as the hon. the Minister will agree, it is the taxpayers’ money that will be used to subscribe for the additional shares, either by one or more subscriptions. Indirectly it is their presence and the form of financing of Iscor which also comes back to the taxpayer who in one sense indirectly stands behind the borrowings of the company.

As we said during the Second Reading, there is no disagreement between us on these benches and the hon. the Minister that remedial action needs to be taken in regard to Iscor’s present gearing, in the sense of the ratio of its loans to the shareholders’ interests. However, that is one thing. There is another thing which needs to be asked, and that is how best to accomplish that object. There is a difference here. On the one hand I agree that remedial action needs to be taken, but it is quite another thing as to how that can be best done.

During the Committee Stage any confusion between the hon. the Minister and those of us sitting on these benches in regard to the figures involved was cleared up. They are quite simply as follows: Clause 1 visualizes an ultimate—and I am careful to use the word “ultimate”—increase from the present issued number of shares of 161,8 million B shares to an authorized capital of 497 million. As and when those shares are issued, that would bring the amoung in rand up from R324 million to R994 million—an increase of no less than R670 million.

In terms of clause 3, the hon. the Minister is asking us to give the board the right to borrow three-quarters of the paid-up capital without the approval of the State President, the Minister and without the concurrence of the hon. the Minister of Finance. That, as of now, would add a further R244 million in the sense of loan capital which the board could go for by overdraft or by other forms of debt financing. As and when the Government subscribes the additional capital which it is creating, ultimately they would be able to get three-quarters of R994 million, i.e. R745 million. When one looks at those figures, one realizes that the public will want answers from the Minister to certain questions. The first is one we have raised in the Second Reading debate, namely: What would the increased revenue to Iscor be if the Government stopped forcing it to subsidize the price of steel? In other words, what increase in the average price of steel in South Africa would that entail? Until the general public has the answer to that question, it is in no position to judge which way it would rather pay for the increased capital in Iscor, on which there is no disagreement. It has to pay; it has done it in the past, and this Bill is evidence that it is going to have to do it in the future. What we are asking is if the Government will stop playing a game of mirrors and instead let the general public be in a position to judge whether it is better, from their point of view, that the necessary funds for the increase in the capital of Iscor, come from the pocket of the general taxpayer or whether it is better that it should come out of the pockets of those who consume steel. It seems to me as if the hon. the Minister owes it to the general public to give them an answer to this particular question.

The second question which the general public will be entitled to ask, is what rate of return Iscor expects to earn on the new money as and when it is put up. We on these benches have the greatest respect for Iscor. It must have done its sums. It is up to the hon. the Minister to tell us and to reassure the public that the use of their money is going to give an economic return. It will give no confidence to the general public if the hon. the Minister cannot give such an undertaking, just like his predecessor refused to give an undertaking. To take another example from the public corporations—and again the lot falls on the hon. the Minister. The managing director of Sasol, Mr. De Villiers, said, according to the Financial Mail of 27 February, in regard to Sasol 2—

Sasol has done its homework and sums. On the other hand, we do not know what the projected return is. The Financial Mail could only ascertain that it would be more than 8½%, but not as much as 15%, and that despite some vigorous questioning. There we have it. Sasol does its homework and we assume Iscor also does its homework. The general public will want to have the reassurance that its money is going to be put to an economic use. The third concern that the general public will have, is that the morale of Iscor is not being affected due to the fact that they are now making losses as a result of the imposition of Government policy in two respects, one to subsidize the price of steel and, secondly, to make them produce the whole range of products. On the other hand we are told by the chairman that it cannot be expected from the State—or more accurately the taxpayer—to continue indefinitely with a pricing and financing policy which results in no returns on the shareholders’ funds.

At the same time, the Government introduces this Bill to increase the equity capital of the corporation. All we are asking the hon. the Minister is to tell us where we stand in the face of what is, in one sense, an apparent contradiction between what the chairman of Iscor says and what the Government brings to this House in this Bill. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government is changing its policy in regard to the prices set by Iscor, or is it simply going to continue with this mirror game? If the hon. the Minister gives us an answer to the first question, then we shall be in a position to know how best the public will react.

We agree with the hon. the Minister that there is no valid comparison between Iscor and the other steel producers in the country, and we on these benches have certainly been careful not to draw any such comparisons. We hope the hon. the Minister will give an assurance that there will be no undue advantage given to Iscor in the areas, broadly speaking, where it competes with the private sector. The sort of undue advantage we have in mind, goes back to the previous remark of the chairman of Iscor, which is, that if one can get equity capital, one is under no compulsion to pay dividends on it. In the recent past the Government has given up their right to dividends. It is quite possible for any company to make profits if they are provided with money on which they have to pay no dividends and service no return to the shareholder. If that happens, and if it is the intention so to do, it would be bad for Iscor, for the country and in the end it will serve no purpose and fool nobody.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react immediately to what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said by saying to him that I am aware, just as he is, of the extent of the activities of Iscor, which quite rightly calls itself a giant in our economy. It is precisely because this is the case that I have tried to indicate that not only are all the aspects raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Johannesburg North continually being investigated by Iscor, but a special inquiry is also being conducted in co-operation with myself into all the facets of the activities of Iscor. I pointed out that the committee which is at the moment conducting an inquiry into Iscor’s activities over a wide spectrum is under the leadership of Prof. Pistorius. Hon. members will remember that I mentioned who the members of this committee are. It seems to me that in order to reassure the hon. member for Johannesburg North at rest, I shall also have to repeat the terms of reference given to the committee by Iscor and the matters on which it is to advise Iscor and the Government. The committee consists of Prof. Pistorius, Mr. Keyes, Dr. Du Plessis of the Treasury, Dr. Reynders of the Federated Chamber of Industries and their director. The composition of this team was discussed with me, and as a result of the discussion I gave permission for Dr. Du Plessis of the Treasury to become a member of this committee, because a great deal of Iscor’s funds, the part of it consisting of share capital, comes from the State and therefore a representative of the State should be present when such an inquiry is taking place. This committee was appointed by Iscor because Iscor itself wants advice about its capital structure and because it wants advice concerning the best manner of adapting its asset/capital/debt ratio, in other words, its own capital as opposed to loan funds. As far back as 1974, my predecessor explained to hon. members when the previous Bill was introduced, the capital programme to which Iscor is committed. In order to give effect to this, it was necessary to put additional funds at Iscor’s disposal.

This is basically the motivation for the Bill. This Bill means nothing more than what I have said it means. It authorizes the increase of the authorized capital of Iscor. After that this Parliament still has to vote the funds, in a lump sum or in separate amounts, for Iscor to have these shares subscribed to by the State President. Then this can be fully debated. At this stage it is an enabling provision and does not force Parliament to vote the funds for this purpose. The second aim is to facilitate the loan procedure by amending section 11 of the existing Act to make Iscor’s ability to raise loans independent of previously approved issues of debentures or shares. Secondly, the authoriziation of the State President is no longer required for raising a loan for an amount not exceeding three-quarters of its authorized capital. The steps which are now being taken in the legislation which is now under consideration, are being taken in anticipation of the results of the inquiry to which I have referred. As far as its scope is concerned, the committee is investigating matters such as the managerial and operational efficiency of the corporation itself. This does not imply a motion of no confidence in the corporation but is meant to satisfy me that the corporation is functioning efficiently, because I occupy a fiduciary position. Instead of welcoming this, the hon. member for Johannesburg North asks questions which I maintain do not interest the general public, but only himself.

I have repeatedly told the hon. member for Johannesburg North that this committee is also specifically investigating the price policy which was followed in the past and has been asked to give an opinion and to make recommendations concerning the action that should be taken in the future. I ask in all fairness: If I have anticipated hon. members and specifically the hon. member for Johannesburg North by causing the price policy to be investigated in co-operation with Iscor, what is the use of an academic speculation at this stage about what the situation would have been if the price had been market orientated? It would have been of no value at all.

Thirdly, Iscor wants the committee of inquiry to give an opinion about the finance policy which has been followed up till now and to make recommendations and to give an opinion with respect to a future finance policy for Iscor. This includes the three sources from which Iscor can obtain funds. The first is capital, in the form of an increase in the share capital, the second is profit, by means of which it can build up its own reserves and which is primarily related to the price of steel; and the third is loan funds. What should the ratio be? I say in all fairness that since last year we have not confined ourselves to speculative discussion or debate about what an alternative hypothesis could be. I am quite prepared to accept my responsibility in this particular connection, and after I have received the reports about the facets to which I referred, to come back to this House—it is my responsibility—and to tell it that arising from the findings of the committee of inquiry, I suggest as a matter of policy that a particular course should be followed in the future. Whereas I now believe that I have convinced hon. members that I want to orientate myself and that the Government wants to orientate itself concerning the course we must take in future, there are still certain functional steps which I must take to obtain the information for myself and to take the necessary decisions. Therefore I believe that hon. members must agree with me about this Bill, and not condemn it like the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Every facet which he debated is covered by the terms of reference of the committee which Iscor appointed. He knows this; I told him so myself. Iscor went further and also asked the committee to express an opinion about the internal efficiency of its financial department concerning its expenditure and concerning its financial needs and related problems, and also to make recommendations regarding the methods to be used should it be found necessary to have the available funds from all sources tally with the expenditure according to its needs. Then it must also do another very important thing, and this is to express an opinion about the efficiency of the department within the corporation which is charged with conducting continuous investigations of efficiency. Then the hon. member for Walmer said that it was a good thing that we were giving attention to this and that the committee should also express an opinion on the allegation, and on the question of whether it is justified, that Iscor operates over too wide a field or in fields which can actually be covered just as efficiently by the private sector, without impeding the efficiency of Iscor itself as far as obtaining, processing and marketing its raw materials are concerned. Having said this, I have the right to say, in all fairness, that I anticipated every facet which has been questioned in this debate by arranging with Iscor to institute an inquiry. Then there can be no criticism of Iscor or of myself in this connection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate started yesterday, we did not have the advantage of having before us the Financial Mail as the hon. member for Walmer had, and also we did not have the opportunity …

Order! I shall allow only one hon. member to give a factual reply to the reference of the hon. member for Walmer to Vantage Property Trust.

Sir, we did not have the Financial Mail, and we also did not have any opportunity of checking on the allegations which the hon. member for Walmer made. I have since had an opportunity of making inquiries and of looking at the Financial Mail from which the hon. member for Walmer quoted. I want to say at the outset that I do not believe it is my function to defend public companies. However, I think that it is one of my functions when a colleague finds himself unjustly under attack, to put the correct facts before the House. I have serious doubts as to the desirability of the names of public companies being bandied about in this House without any opportunity on their part to defend themselves. That, however, is not the issue at the moment.

The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Sir, I shall. I am dealing purely with the allegations made against the hon. member for Johannesburg North. In this case the relevant issue is not the public company, but the accuracy of the facts which have been put here in relation to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. If I may, I want to quote what the hon. member for Walmer said here yesterday. He listed a number of things which he regarded as being matters which were required to give protection to purchasers against what he termed “unscrupulous sellers”, and then, having listed that …

Order! The hon. member must not now discuss what the hon. member for Walmer said yesterday. The hon. member must only give the facts of the matter relating to Vantage Property Trust.

Mr. Speaker, I crave your indulgence to put it to you that I have to state in each case what the hon. member for Walmer actually said, and then what the facts are. The facts by themselves, without contrasting them with what was said, will make it impossible to deal with the situation. I am not going to attack the hon. member for Walmer. All I intend doing, is to list what he said and then to say what the facts are. If I have to deal with the facts on their own, they would bear no relationship.

I want to point out to the hon. member that I also read the Hansard. The hon. member must start when the hon. member for Walmer began speaking about Vantage Property Trust.

Sir, the hon. member for Walmer, having listed these things, said: “I want to deal with a specific instance where this happened.” In other words, events which preceded that constitute the specific instance of where this happened. That is all that I want to refer to. Firstly, it is alleged that there is a company The hon. member said—

On my information, the total shareholding of this company is 75 000 shares of R1 each, which is a slightly different picture to the one of “a few R1 shares”. He then want on to say (Hansard manuscript page CC. 1).

He then quoted from the Financial Mail details relating to this company, Vantage Property Trust.

Yes, and that is what the hon. member must give the facts about.

I want to deal specifically with the facts as they are. This in fact is the situation: Firstly, as far as Anglo American is concerned—as I am informed as to what transpired—the company took over a group of companies which were known as the Engelhard Companies. Included in those companies was a company which in turn held a minority shareholding in Vantage Property Trust (Pty.) Ltd., the company to which the hon. member for Walmer referred. The majority shareholding in that company, of 60%, was held by a gentleman by the name of Howard J. Cohen. He was the managing director, the man who held the majority shareholdings in that company. He had the majority representation on the board.

What is even more interesting, is that in October 1970, at the time when this take-over took place, the company taking over provided that Mr. Cohen could be called upon to buy the shares, which were in fact the minority holding of shares included in this company. That right was exercised on October 19,1971. This is now quite a long time ago. The right was exercised. Anglo American Corporation, of which the hon. member for Johannesburg North is a director, exercised its right to dispose of all its shareholdings in this company. What then transpired, was that Mr. Cohen was not in a position to pay, that the shares remained registered as a matter of security in order to protect their investment, and in due course this company was placed under judicial management—not by Anglo American Corporation, not by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but by the liquidator of the company itself as a result of the demands by creditors. These were not demands made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North or his business connections. As a result of this the organization with which the hon. member for Johannesburg North is connected, lost no less than R360 000.

That is the position as it happened. That is the situation. And to now … [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the situation, Sir. There was no question here of the hon. member for Johannesburg North’s company going into a township venture, buying land without paying for it. On the contrary, even the predecessors who handled this, did not—as the hon. member for Walmer suggested—pay only a small deposit. In fact, they paid quite a substantial sum of money. However, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was not involved in it. It happened as a result of taking over a whole group. It was not something they managed or something that they were in any way concerned with as far as the administration or any executive function was concerned. It happened to be in their group. As long ago as 1971, a time before the property prices went up—something about which the hon. member for Walmer became so excited—they had already exercised their right in order to make Mr. Cohen take over his shares.

These, Sir, are the facts, and I think that

I think the hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

I want to say one last word on this. I believe that when one makes allegations, …

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

Sir, may I …

The hon. member has given his explanation.

Sir, may I just ask the hon. member whether now, that he knows the facts, is prepared to apologize to the hon. member for Johannesburg North?

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

I shall sit down now.

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are very pleased he has decided to amend this Bill. It was imperative that it should be amended. I think he will agree that clause 2 of the Bill was suggested last year by hon. members on this side of the House. Before I deal with the details of the Bill itself, I should just like to say a few things to the hon. member for Yeoville. Firstly, it is surprising to me that the Anglo American group did not repudiate the allegations that were made in the Financial Mail.

Order! I have ruled that I am not going to allow any further discussion of Vantage Property Trust. The hon. member must discuss the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I repudiate certain remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville last night concerning the hon. member for Walmer? Otherwise the record stands uncorrected. It is only on the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville that I wish to address the House, and in relation to the Bill too of course. I specifically have to repudiate the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. They cannot stand unrefuted. I submit that with respect.

The hon. member may do so, but I shall stop him if I find it necessary.

Thank you, Sir. I shall then leave the question of Anglo-American owning the SAAN group.

What?

The SAAN group owns the Financial Mail. Anglo-American could easily …

Order! If the hon. member does not obey my ruling, I shall have to ask him to sit down.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the Hansard of the hon. member for Walmer. In his speech he said the following—

That is what he asked. He went on to say the following—

What does the hon. member for Yeoville say? This is what he says …

Read the whole of his speech; do not take a little piece out of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling, and consequently address myself to the Minister of Economic Affairs. What has happened is that in clause 1 of the Bill the hon. the Minister takes the powers that were given to a purchaser to sign certain documents relating to an intermediate transaction from that purchaser … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I please have a little order? I cannot speak against this noise and the hon. the Minister cannot hear me.

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member a fair hearing.

The hon. the Minister is now taking the powers of an ultimate purchaser to sign documents relating to an intermediate transaction from that purchaser and in clause 3 hands those powers over to the messenger of the court or a deputy sheriff by virtue of imposing upon the purchaser a duty to apply to court for those signatory powers. We believe this to be correct, because we accept that as it stands at the moment, section 11(9) does lend itself to abuse. We accept that fact. Our main objection, however, to the finalization of transfer documents and documents in relation to transfer duty, when an intermediate purchaser or seller is missing, still remains. Our objection to it was basically that there are certain documents which in terms of the Deeds Registry Act have to be signed in relation to transfer. I particularly refer to the Group Areas Act.

I believe that this Bill is imposing a tremendous duty on the messenger of the court and I am thinking of all the messengers of the court throughout the country, in the small areas where applications could possibly be made to the magistrate of those particular courts, and the deputy sheriffs, who have many other functions to perform. They will have to ascertain details about the group to which the missing person belongs. Furthermore it could happen that there are more than one intermediate transfer. So, if there are perhaps two intermediate transferors missing, the obligation on the messenger of the court and the deputy sheriff would be to try to ascertain the group to which those two missing people belong. The objection we raise is that this cannot be done by any person; it is almost an impossibility. The second objection is that in terms of the Transfer Duty Act, there is an obligation on both the seller and the purchaser to sign declarations under oath. These declarations are important and enable the Commissioner of Inland Revenue ultimately to decide whether the correct duty has been paid on land transactions. Let me go further. The following are the items that have to be declared in a transfer duty declaration: Firstly, the date of the transaction. If there is a missing intermediary, one would possibly have difficulty in establishing the date of that transaction. If there were two missing intermediaries, I would say that it would be even more difficult. The second important element to be established in the declaration is the selling price. Thirdly, one has to establish whether there were any improvements on the property and, fourthly, whether the purchaser has given the seller, apart from the purchase price, any gifts or goods that might be considered valuable consideration. Fifthly and lastly, of course one has to establish whether the seller and purchaser are related in any way at all.

These are absolute imperatives in regard to the payment of transfer duty. I know from experience—and I believe the hon. the Minister also knows from experience—that if one does not complete this documentation in full, the Receiver of Revenue refuses point blank to give a transfer duty receipt. I cannot therefore see how it is that any messenger of the court or any deputy sheriff can possibly ascertain the details required for the completion of documents of this nature in order to allow the transaction to go through, and I do not believe that any conditions a magistrate could impose, as a result of a court order, would overcome these difficulties. We have suggested in the past that one or two things should happen. In this Bill should be incorporated a provision to the effect that if the intermediary is missing and one cannot trace him, the intermediate transaction should be regarded as cancelled. That would do away with all the requirements for documentation. Alternatively, we suggested last year that the hon. the Minister should consider waiving transfer duty on intermediate transactions and making transfer direct from the original seller to the final and ultimate purchaser. Then I believe that all the difficulties that have been raised here this afternoon would be overcome. Other than that, we believe the Bill is a good and advantageous measure.

Mr. Speaker, let me immediately thank hon. members for their support of the legislation we are now considering. I have no objection whatsoever to the hon. member for Griqualand East having his moment of glory. I refer to his statement that the amendment now being introduced originated on that side of the House.

I did not speak at all.

My apologies. The point is that I have indicated that I would be prepared to accept the amendments of any members if I felt they would improve the measure before the House. I have said as much, and I am not denying the fact that some amendments originated with the hon. member on the other side.

*I do not intend to take part in the interlude between the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Yeoville, except for saying that, arising from the report referred to by the hon. member for Walmer and without discussing its merits, he made remarks regarding the responsibility of shareholders in private companies when it comes to property transactions. I think that in all fairness I must at least react to this. In his speech the hon. member pointed out dangers involved in buying land from an intermediary in terms of an intermediary transaction when such intermediary is a company. This danger does not exist only when one is buying from an intermediary who is a company, but also when the original person was a company. Consequently the problem which he referred to and tried to identify is not applicable only to companies which are intermediaries, but also to companies in the capacity of the original sellers. Under these particular circumstances the hon. member suggests that the responsibility of the shareholders or directors—usually a shareholder in a private company is also a director of the company—be extended to oblige them to accept their full personal responsibility for the obligations of the company. The hon. member will understand that the responsibilities of shareholders and of directors are defined in the Companies Act. I think it would be dangerous to use this legislation to make some companies—in this case, companies dealing in property—subject to other legislation than the Companies Act. In saying this I am not underestimating the dangers which exist. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we can deal with the problem in this way. I want to say at once that I am prepared to investigate this aspect, because the whole spirit of the legislation we are discussing at the moment is basically concerned with the protection of a person who is not always able to obtain the information relevant to a land transaction. However, I want to repeat that I think it would be unwise to insert into this legislation any amendment to the Companies Act regarding the responsibilities of shareholders and directors. I hope the hon. member will accept this.

In the second place, the hon. member asked whether it would not be possible for us to draw up a hand-book or guide for prospective buyers who wish to buy land on installments. He said that such a guide could be compiled in co-operation with the law societies and Sapoa. I want to suggest that if and when the legislation still to be considered by the House, the Registration of Estate Agents Bill, has been passed by Parliament, this should be possible, but that the initiative in this particular connection should really emanate from the private sector.

I think that when that legislation has been passed, no matter what form it takes, all parties normally concerned with a large number of land transactions—not individual ones—should meet to work out a code for themselves along the lines suggested by the hon. member. I am afraid that we shall have to get away from the idea that it is always the responsibility of the authorities to take matters in hand, even when such matters form the essence of the economic system which we want to have in our country. I want to suggest that the hon. member take the initiative within the society of his own profession in having such a hand-book drawn up in co-operation with the other people concerned. I believe it could be of great use.

Apart from his reaction to the hon. member for Walmer, the hon. member for Yeoville made certain proposals in his speech, such as the one regarding the forfeiture stipulation in a contract for the purchase of land on installments. He wanted a court order to be obtained in all cases. I think I understood the hon. member correctly.

Or a written agreement.

Yes. In practice, a forfeiture clause is usually included in the contract. This is actually the rule and not the exception. I think the hon. member will agree with this. In other words, the alternative does in fact take place in practice. However, I am quite prepared to look at that facet of the legislation as well.

The hon. member further suggested that the new procedure, i.e. that a court order has to be obtained, should not really be laid down in the Bill. He said he was not quite sure whether such an order in the magistrate’s court or in the provincial division of the Supreme Court could take place by way of an application. With all respect, I think that this is relevant, because it affects the costs. I think the hon. member should leave this facet at that for the moment. If the point is valid—I shall go into it—negotiations should rather be conducted with the Department of Justice for prescribing a particular procedure to be followed in applications of this nature. I undertake to look at this particular aspect and to see whether the problem referred to by the hon. member is a real one. I want to say at once that superficially speaking it seems to me that the order can be obtained on an ordinary application by way of petition and perhaps by way of a motion, if another person has to be cited. In any case, I undertake to go into the matter.

Finally, I come to the hon. member for East London City. He argued that the existing legislation and the amending Bill contains the same basic mistake, namely that a person has to make a statement concerning facts of which he does not have first-hand knowledge. That was really the point he wanted to make. The way the Act reads at the moment, the purchaser has to make the statement. I think we all agree that the fact that the purchaser is able to make statements and sign documents to effect transfer into his name represents a basic wrong principle and that it can lead to deception, which can take on an unlimited scale in certain circumstances.

It is dangerous.

I think we have eliminated that problem with the new procedure. The purchaser now has to obtain an order. Then the messenger of the court or the sheriff may sign the documents. Now the hon. member argues that although we have removed one evil, we have still not solved his problem. I shall be brief. The document which has to be signed in order to effect transfer must be in the form of affidavits, inter alia the statement in terms of the Group Areas Act and the statement for transfer duty purposes.

Some things we do know, inter alia that a contract of purchase and sale of land must be in writing. In other words, there is a record of that deed of sale, and it exists in respect of all the transactions, from the first to the last. The second thing which I think we can accept as practical people is that the purchaser and the seller in every transaction are known to someone else, namely the person who drew up the contract. Then I want to allege—and the hon. member will accept this as well—that all that is expected of the person who has to sign the statement is that he should take all reasonable steps to confirm the facts about which he makes a statement. This is so, but let me tell you, Sir, that the hon. member and I, when we have to make a statement to the effect that we are not related to someone from whom we are purchasing, often make such a statement in the same ignorance as any other man. In other words, there are no absolute requirements in respect of the content. In the statements throughout we only have to ensure that we do not knowingly make a false statement and that we are reasonably sure, in so far as a reasonable person can be sure of the facts about which he is making the statement. Now I just want to say in conclusion that I still concede that the hon. member has an argument. I have no answer for him. A cancellation of the agreement is no answer, because it may not suit the purchaser, financially or otherwise, to regard the contract as cancelled, and then we should prejudice him for an act for which he was not responsible himself. For this reason I want to suggest that we accept the amendment, which is an improvement to the existing legislation. I shall see whether there is another method we can follow to solve this problem which the hon. member pointed out.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, since the Price Control Act (Act No. 25 of 1964) came into operation on 2 October 1964, it has been amended on only one occasion, and that was during 1967. Although generally speaking the administration of the Act has presented relatively few problems, certain deficiencies have come to light which impede the Price Controller in the performance of his duties.

I now want to give a brief explanation of the principles contained in the amendments which have been embodied in the Bill. In clause 1 of the Bill it is proposed that one new definition be added to the existing definitions and that one of the existing definitions be amended.

†Although the verb “advertise” has an accepted meaning, which can be gleaned from any authoritative dictionary, it is felt that for purposes of price control, the concept in question should be given a more precise meaning than the meaning given thereto by a dictionary. The word “advertise” is used only once in the Act in the definition of “sell”. However, the word is also used in certain notices in terms of the Act. The definition of the word “advertise” will, therefore, remove any doubt which could arise in connection with the intention of such notices in which the word in question is used.

The proposed definition will apply to the distribution in any manner to members of the public of certain material, an oral statement, communication or representation the purpose of which is to promote or encourage the sale of goods or the use of goods or services, or to draw attention to a particular aspect of such goods or services.

*The existing definition in the Act to which an amendment is being proposed is the definition of the word “sell”. There is uncertainty about the application of the Act in cases where a dealer or shop-keeper hides the goods he wants to sell to his clients behind a counter and then serves his clients from there. When a client then asks for the hidden goods concerned, if I may so term them, those goods are taken out from behind the counter and sold to the client. The position is clear in respect of goods which are visibly exposed, displayed or advertised for sale. All that has been proposed here is that the position be made clear with regard to what I call the hidden goods which the shop-keeper intends to sell.

Furthermore it is proposed in clause 2 of the Bill that section 9(1) of the Act be amended. In terms of the existing stipulations of the said section, the Price Controller could by notice prohibit the sale of any goods or the rendering of any service subject to conditions specified in the notice. The effect of such a notice is that no one may in respect of the sale of those particular goods or the rendering of that particular service impose such conditions as are specified in the notice. In terms of these powers, the Price Controller has prohibited the sale of certain goods, such as motor vehicles, furniture and household appliances, on certain prescribed conditions.

Because the notices prohibiting the sale of the goods concerned are worded negatively, many persons affected by these notices find it difficult to understand such notices. If such notices were to be drawn up in positive terms, i.e. in the form of a directive, rather than in a negative form, i.e. in the form of a prohibition, such notices could be much more simply worded. Consequently I am now proposing that it be made clear that the Price Controller is authorized to lay down conditions in respect of the sale of goods or the rendering of services.

†I also propose an amendment to section 13(1) of the Act relating to the powers of inspectors appointed under the Act. Generally, information required by the office of the Price Controller is submitted to that office voluntarily by the persons who are asked for such information. However, recently, when a survey into increases in prices as a result of inflation was undertaken by the office of the Price Controller, certain manufacturers and merchants refused to submit to price control inspectors information in regard to goods of which the maximum prices are not controlled by the Act.

It is therefore considered necessary to empower price control inspectors to gather such information as may be required by the Price Controller, irrespective of whether such information relates to goods of which the maximum prices are controlled.

*In clause 4 of the Bill, an amendment is proposed to section 15 of the Act, which relates to the power of the Price Controller to grant exemptions. At the moment, doubt exists as to whether the Price Controller is in fact empowered to grant exemption in respect of any notice made by him in terms of the Act. The proposed amendments to section 15 of the Act will eliminate this uncertainty.

Finally, it is proposed in clause 5 of the Bill that the maximum fine which a person can be required to pay on conviction of an offence in terms of the Act be increased from R1 000 to R2 000. I do not suppose that any explanation is required as to the reason for the increase, and there should be general support for this.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill presently before the House is introduced against a climate of mounting concern on the part of the consumer, who sees continually increasing prices eroding not only his security, but also the purchasing power of his money. The Government has in negotiation with consumers and commerce and industry, expressed its intention to give all possible support to any means whereby we can assist the consumer. I want to make the point that in this collective campaign against inflation a certain manifesto was signed by various parties. This manifesto was also signed by the Government. I want to quote a particular clause, and to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give the House the assurance that the Government has in the preparation of this Bill, which may be contentious, consulted the parties concerned. I refer to clause (ix)(k) under the heading “new legislation” in which the hon. the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, has undertaken in the manifesto as follows—

I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has done this. Of course we shall examine the good faith of the Government in this in all legislation effecting cost-raising measures in future.

I want to say immediately to the hon. the Minister—he may not have expected it—that we on this side of the House are going to support this Bill. We believe that it is necessary, despite protestations of commerce and industry against the principal Act in 1964 when the principle of price control was established. South Africa is experiencing unfavourable conditions, but it is a fact that the Government has associated itself intimately and closely with the concept of aiding and abetting free enterprize. Since the Government and the hon. the Minister have made it plain in this House that they are in principle against wage freezes and price controls in a wide concept, we accept this Bill in good faith. We realize that what the hon. the Minister is seeking to do here, is to perfect the existing legislation, which, as he so rightly says, has been in force with only one amendment since 1964, but has now run into certain snags in the present climate and conditions ruling in our economy at the moment.

However, we have reservations as to the extent of the powers which the Government is taking on its shoulders, and we have an amendment on the Order Paper which will be motivated by hon. members of this side of the House. We believe that the trade at large has not been consulted. I have spoken to commercial circles who expressed concern over the Bill. They believe that the hon. the Minister has let them down in not having come to official representatives of commerce, such as the Handelsinstituut, Assocom and Federated Chambers of Industries prior to the actual printing of the Bill. It avails little to bring the Bill to the attention of commerce and industry at the time it appears on the Order Paper of this House. Commerce believe that they want to assist the Government with the perfecting of legislation, and they feel that the hon. the Minister may have let them down on this occasion.

I now come to the Bill and the principles as enunciated by the hon. the Minister. The Bill contains four important clauses. I think it is important that this House should realize that the Bill seeks to introduce a definition of “advertise” into the principal Act. This word is being given a very full definition, but this definition is used to explain the word “advertise” which only appears once in the Bill itself under the definition of “sell”. In clause 1(b) we see that the definition of “sell” reads—

The word “keep” is a new addition. The definition of “advertise” which is given effect to in this amendment is a long one, and is extremely wide. It would be as well for all commercial undertakings, for all sellers of goods, to familiarize themselves with the actual details involved in this definition. If they do not do so, I think that, unwittingly, they cold find themselves infringing the law and being subject to very severe penalties.

The hon. the Minister has also introduced into the definition of “sell” the concept of “keep” for sale. Hon. members will know that most goods that are for sale are either displayed for sale, are on the counters, are in the show windows or in show cases or they have been advertised for sale. I believe the hon. the Minister quite rightly intends here to deal with goods which are not specifically on display, either on the counters, on the shelves, in the store or in the windows. Some storekeepers do tend to keep goods for sale which they either offer to specific customers only or to people who come in and inquire whether these goods are there. This makes the task of the inspector almost impossible if he endeavours to check the prices that are shown on goods that should be price controlled. Therefore, in this case we will go along with the hon. the Minister in this particular clause.

In clause 2 the hon. the Minister is endeavouring to rectify what may be a defect in the wording of the original Act in that the price controllers is given certain powers to prohibit the doing of certain things, the selling of certain articles and the selling of certain services. There is, I believe, a legal quibble over the powers one has of prohibition and just how far they go. In reading this Bill it would appear that the hon. the Minister is endeavouring to introduce a more positive power of being able to lay down conditions in addition to being only able to prohibit. If one is allowed to prohibit a thing, one may certainly lay down conditions about what may not be done. These powers once more seem to be very wide because they seek to impose, in respect of the sale of any goods or the rendering of any service, such conditions as the Price Controller may think fit. In the Committee Stage we are going to ask the hon. the Minister to elaborate on this and give us certain assurances that it will not be prejudicial to the ordinary trader.

We then come to the third clause, which embodies an amendment of section 13(1) of the Act. We believe in this regard that the hon. the Minister, although we accept his intention, has introduced a phrase which is extremely wide, and we are going to move an amendment to give it a somewhat curtailed import. The clause reads—

To this is added—

The principal Act goes on to list a number of facts and information which the price controller may call for. Here we accept from the hon. the Minister that, originally, action could only be taken in the case of such articles as were actually listed under the price control instructions or the Act itself. It is now the intention to throw the field wide open and to Investigate any prices on the floor of any trader or on the shelves of any manufacturer. We believe it is so wide that it shows a lack of faith in commerce and industry as such. However, we do have regard for the hon. the Minister’s statement that, in endeavouring to ascertain whether there has been an overall increase in prices due to devaluation or other causes, the price control inspectors have met with resistance to the giving of voluntary information. Where the situation is so severe and where we may be entering into an even more inflationary period, we believe that the hon. the Minister may have a case, but we want to ask him not to make this provision as wide as he has.

Clause 4 gives the price controllers, through the Minister, the right to grant exemptions, and here we are concerned that the hon. the Minister has gone far too far in our opinion when he says, in the new section 15(b)—

the controller may do certain things. We are very jealous of the rights of the individual and we are very jealous of the rights of private enterprise, and in a full free competitive system definitions of this kind have not been necessary since the introduction of the Act and it concerns us that they have become necessary now. It is in the spirit of endeavouring to maintain the private enterprise system unshackled, except in extreme emergencies, or in the case of strategic goods or goods which have to be used by the man in the street, that we believe that the hon. the Minister has taken powers which are going beyond the intention of the original Act.

Finally, clause 5, which is the penalty clause, increases the penalty for infringement of this Act from R1 000 to R2 000. We go along with the hon. the Minister here, because unfortunately for members on this side of the House the rand, under the present Government, has so little value in any case that we accept that what was R1 000 in 1964 could be interpreted as having a purchasing power of R2 000 now. We are going to support the hon. the Minister with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has adopted a standpoint here this afternoon and I want to say that it seems to me that the Opposition too has come to realize the wisdom of legislation of this nature. That is why they are now supporting this legislation, because I believe that normally they would not have supported legislation of this kind. The hon. member made a point in connection with clause 4. I believe that the position is that the persons concerned are normally consulted. It does happen sometimes that price control measures are taken without consulting interested parties, because of a lack of time. The validity of such measures could be questioned, and I believe that wherever it is practicable, the department will always assign reasons for its decisions as a matter of policy. As regards the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, therefore, I believe that there will always be consultation as far as possible.

This legislation has worked very satisfactorily since 1964, but I believe that especially in the present economic climate, it is essential to ensure that the Price Controller is not impeded in any way in the performance of his duties. This legislation proves once again that the Government is serious in its intention to protect the interests of the public, of the consumers, at all times. For this reason, mere technicalities must not be allowed to hinder this attempt, causing the interests of the public to be prejudiced.

I believe that clause 1, in which the word “advertise” is defined, to be a real improvement, and although the word “advertise”—as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said—is used in the definition of “sell”, I believe that the intention of advertising is given a more specific and a more precise meaning for the purposes of price control. It will now be possible to ascertain beyond all doubt the intention pertaining to the advertisement or article which is presented, because the word “advertise” has now been defined. The proposed definition provides for the distribution of any communication, written or verbal, which is aimed at promoting the sale of goods or services, or which draws attention to particular qualities of goods or services.

The definition of the word “sale” is supplemented by the word “keep” for sale. I believe that the intention is to remove all doubt, for example, where a dealer hides behind his counter goods which he has for sale on his premises and which he only sells to clients on specific demand. This is now being brought into line with the position regarding goods exposed and displayed for sale.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, this amendment removes all doubt about the Price Controller’s power to lay down conditions in connection with the sale of goods or the rendering of services. The present position is that the Act contained an absolute prohibition, while in future it will be impossible to impose certain conditions in connection with the sale of particular goods.

Clause 3 is an essential amendment to enable the Price Controller to obtain information concerning the prices of goods, irrespective of whether the maximum prices of the goods are controlled. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and his party were worried about this as well. I do not think that anyone has anything to be afraid of. The public must be protected and no honourable dealer need fear that action will be taken against him in terms of this clause in the manner foreseen by the hon. member when he said that it was a tremendously wide clause.

I referred to clause 4 at the beginning. As regards clause 5, which provides for an increased fine, I believe that this increase will have a good effect on people who sometimes take no notice of the question of price control. It is a privilege to me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with what is an emotive issue at this point in time, although it is obviously not the occasion to discuss the merits over the long term of price control. What is understandable, and what affects all the people in this country, is the rate of inflation. The price control mechanism is one attempt introduced by this Government in order to try to keep the rate of inflation slightly lower than it would otherwise be. It is however, difficult for the aged and the poor of this country to view the efforts of this Government in a credible light and in a light of sincerity when you have a collective programme, a voluntary programme to fight inflation, and at the same time you have the sort of increases announced by the hon. the Minister of Transport earlier this afternoon. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has also indicated that price rises are likely to come on all basic food items, which are of course a broad necessity for most people who live in this country.

If one looks at this particular Bill, there are certain questions which we would like to ask the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he can clear these matters up when he replies, or during the Committee Stage. I would have thought that when it came to drawing a definition of the word “advertise”, which the hon. the Minister referred to in his Second Reading speech, one would settle for a standard definition. The hon. the Minister will be aware that the definitions as set out in clause 1 of this Bill differ in a number of respects—I refer to the definition of the word “advertise” and the definition of the word “sell”—from the definitions in the Trade Practices Bill. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why it is that on the one hand, in the Trade Practices Bill, we have one definition for the word “advertise”, and more particularly for the word “sell”, while when we come to price control we have another. I would have thought that having taken the trouble to cover as wide a field as possible, it should have been possible to standardize the definitions.

Clause 2 of this Bill amends section 9 of the principal Act, which deals with conditional selling. It deals with the sort of situation which may arise when a person is selling television sets, which might happen to be in short supply at a particular time. As I understand it, the rationale behind the original section 9 was to prevent such a person from saying that he will sell a television set for RX “provided you also buy A, B, C and other articles”.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Minister will go further and explain to us why he has introduced the wording set out here as an amendment, because it goes extremely wide and is very sweeping. It simply says: “… or impose in respect of the sale of any goods or the rendering of any service such conditions as he may think fit.”

Will the hon. the Minister confirm, when he gets to his reply in this debate, that this clause still relates and only relates, to conditionally selling?

In clause 3 of this Bill the hon. the Minister has stated that the reason for the introduction of this is basically that when the Price Controller came to make a survey, those appointed by him could not get any information unless it was voluntarily given by certain people whose goods fell outside the purview of price control as it stood at that point in time. Therefore we now have this wording, which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has pointed out to be extremely broad. It simply relates to the gathering of such information as the Price Controller may desire. Presumably there are some conditions placed on this, in the sense, as we understand it, that the further subsection of the original Act would apply to this. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to confirm that no such person, acting on the authority of the Price Controller, can in any way ask for information from any business, unless it is specifically related to this particular Act and to what has been previously set out.

I can give you confirmation of that across the floor right now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Minister for that. I now want to deal with clause 4. We have put an amendment to clause 4 on the Order Paper, simply because one could have the circumstances that the hon. the Minister or the Price Controller from time to time in the Gazette, may exempt any person or any category of persons from any provision of that Act, and may specify conditions for the exemption under which, for instance, an individual may commence the business of making those goods on the basic of an exemption granted under whatever terms or conditions are set forth by the Price Controller or the hon. the Minister in the Gazette. Thereafter, in terms of subsection (b) of the Bill, the hon. the Minister or the Price Controller, without assigning any reason and without giving any hearing to the person or persons concerned, can withdraw or modify to such extent and subject to such conditions as the Price Controller may deem fit, any such exemptions.

If somebody reads in the Gazette that he can go into a business which is exempted from certain terms and conditions, he may invest capital and he may equip a factory in order to go into this business. And then, without any warning and without any reason being given, either verbally or without a hearing, the Price Controller can withdraw that exemption in toto or modify it. Mr. Speaker, that is an intolerable thing to ask people to accept, and therefore we have very great difficulty in accepting clause 4. We shall therefore propose an amendment in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, price control is one facet of the war against inflation in this country. As I have said, all the citizens of this country will be looking to the efforts of the Government in this regard. In reference to that, we would like to refer to a reply given by the hon. the Minister to a question on 18 February. He was asked how many price control supervisors or inspectors there were on the establishment of the Price Controller. He replied that there were 138, of which 41 were vacancies. If one is going to have price control, and if one is going to give the powers to the Price Controller, and to those deputized by him, as set out in terms of this Bill, and if one accepts that there is a temporary necessity for price control in order that people can protect themselves to some extent against the ravages of inflation, there is a real obligation on the Government to do it as properly and as efficiently as possible and without going to some of the lengths which are set out in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after the comment of the hon. member for Klerksdorp when he started, I am surprised to find that there is nobody on that side of the House who is prepared to support him or his Minister. It is quite obvious that the persons who should be opposing the Bill are those backbenchers. Why are they not speaking? The hon. member for Klerksdorp gets up here and jokes with us, saying he is surprised that we are prepared to support the Bill today because normally we would have opposed it. How right he is! We would normally have opposed a Bill like this. The hon. the Minister and all members on that side of the House know that we are opposed to the principle of price control, and in fact I believe that this hon. Minister and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, are not in favour of price control either. In fact, we have had numerous statements from them to the effect that they are not in favour of price control. However—and this is the crux of the matter—there are times when, under certain circumstances, this evil is unfortunately necessary.

I agree.

There the hon. the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me. I am extremely glad to hear that there is somebody on that side of the House who agrees with me. There are occasions—unfortunately, I repeat—when this sort of control is necessary. That is why we have this type of legislation on the Statute Book. Once again, however, I must agree with my friend, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, and other speakers who have indicated that unfortunately we believe the hon. the Minister is going a little too far.

In the Committee Stage we shall move certain amendments, but I would like to discuss with him the whole principle of those amendments now, before we finish with this stage of the Bill.

You have the Committee Stage to do that.

Why is the hon. the Deputy Minister so sensitive? Is he opposed to this measure? If he is not, why will he not stand up and speak? I do not know why he is so sensitive. It is all right; we are supporting the measure. There is no need to fight. We are not here to fight today. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I have said, under certain circumstances we could accept an amendment to this legislation, but today the hon. the Minister finds himself faced with a situation where we have cost-push inflation, not demand-pull inflation. Price control is justifiable when one is faced with demand-pull inflation, if it is to fight against inflation. However, it is not justified under the present circumstances. Both the amendments the hon. the Minister has moved in clause 1 are, in effect, amendments to the definition of “sell”. The first question that arises is why we have a different definition of the verb “to advertise”. Why is the definition of “advertise” in this Bill different from the one we have in the Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Amendment Bill? The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is here, or he was a minute ago. Why is it different from the definition that was inserted in the Trade Practices Bill by the Select Committee?

Because it is a different thing one is advertising.

I think that hon. Whip must understand that when men are talking, children must be seen and not heard. That hon. Whip knows nothing about this subject. It would be better if he simply kept quiet. The first question is, why the difference? I am asking this because this is of vital importance to every businessman in this country, whether he is an industrialist selling the products he produces, whether he is a retailer or whether he is a distributor in the wholesale sector. It is important that he should know where he stands because he is going to have one Act with one definition of “advertise” and another Act with another definition of “advertise”, and he is going to be bound by both in regard to the definition of “sell”. Advertisement today is the lifeblood of commerce and industry and when “sell” is given this connotation, it is important that we have absolute clarity and that there should be no ambiguity in this matter at all. It is important to the commercial sector of this country.

In respect of clause 2 the hon. the Minister says he is not taking any additional powers; he is merely clarifying the issue. Section 9 of the Act is being used at the moment by his department to control such things as multilevel selling, to control the minimum deposits which are required when articles are bought on hire-purchase or on lease or anything of that sort, to control the maximum periods of repayment, to control undesirable practices in contracts and all things of that nature. However, the hon. the Minister says he is not taking any wider powers; he says he is merely putting things in a positive light. When this section is read in conjunction with the exemptions clause—clause 4, substituting section 15—we see a different story altogether because now the hon. the Minister is allowing the price controller to—

We must not lose sight of the fact that this refers to all goods, not only to goods, the price of which is controlled. The hon. the Minister looks disbelieving, so let me quote to him further—

I believe the hon. the Minister needs those powers, but I wonder why he is now assuming this extra power. Is it really necessary to have this extra power, particularly in the light of the provisions of section 9? The prohibition in section 9(2) may relate to any goods or services or any special classes of persons. Section 9(3) may prohibit the sale unless there is a certain deposit or a limited period, which is exactly the point I have made. Then we come to section 9(5) which is the section where the hon. the Minister may make conditions or prohibit the service or the sale except under certain conditions. I quote—

And in addition to the expanded meaning he is giving to it here today—

Now we find that the price controller can apply to the term “sale” any meaning he pleases. Now we have come full circle. The hon. the Minister is amending the word “sell”, but he does not need to amend it because in the Act at the moment the price controller has the power to assign to the concept “sale”, in regard to the prohibition of the sale of goods or the rendering of services, any meaning whatsoever that he wishes to apply. However, when the hon. the Minister says this is an uncontentious Bill …

Hurry up; you have only one minute left for talking nonsense.

… and that there is nothing of any consequence in it to worry us, let me refer him to clause 3. In terms of this clause a price control supervisor or inspector has the right to enter premises, etc.—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h15.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was unfortunately interrupted for supper—I say “unfortunately” advisedly, because I believe it is important that when we are busy with a matter we should keep our minds on the task at hand—I was telling hon. members that as a general rule we on this side of the House would have rejected a measure of this nature outright. But, as I also pointed out before dinner, there are circumstances where unfortunately such a measure is necessary. However, we are not altogether satisfied with the tremendous powers which the hon. the Minister is now asking for. He tried to tell us in his introductory speech that he was asking for no real new powers in this Bill. But I want to refer him particularly to clause 3 of the Bill, where we are dealing with an amendment to section 13 of the Act dealing with the powers of price control supervisors and inspectors. The position at the moment is that any price control inspector may, for the purpose of enquiring whether the provisions of this Act or any notice issued thereunder have been complied with, do certain things. In other words, the inspector is limited in his operations. He is limited to enquiring into whether or not the provisions of this Act or any notice, including the standard notice which the hon. the Minister is now asking for in terms of clause 2 of the Bill, have been complied with or not—in other words, whether there has been a contravention or not and whether an offence has been committed or not. But now we find that the hon. the Minister wishes to add that this price control inspector may, for the purpose of gathering such information as the Price Controller may desire, do certain things. That is a completely undefined power; it is a completely unlimited power which is now being asked for these inspectors. It is unlimited, to do what? If we look at section 13 of the Act, we find that these controllers or inspectors may order any person to produce goods, books or records and to furnish the supervisor or inspector with any other information relating to the goods or the service or the books, that he may examine or make extracts from or copies of such books or records, and that he may even seize and take possession of any such book, record, list or document.

In terms of what the hon. the Minister is asking us now, an inspector can, whether or not it is anticipated that there has been a contravention of the Act or of any notice issued under the Act, and for any purpose whatsoever, without limit, go into any person’s premises or his house at any time and can do all these things. He will have all these powers if the Bill is passed in its present form. Now, Sir, we want to help the hon. the Minister.

Why?

It is a very good question! I have said three times tonight already that there are special circumstances which obtain at the moment and which necessitate that we must come to the assistance of the Minister in carrying out these functions in terms of the Act. For that reason I have placed on the Order Paper an amendment which I will move in the Committee Stage, but which I would like to have accepted in principle now at Second Reading. It is to limit the gathering of this information by the inspectors or by the price control supervisor to such information as may be directly relevant to the provisions of the Act. I know that the hon. the Minister has other thoughts on this matter. I do not know whether he and I are very far apart in the thoughts that we have, but before the hon. the Minister asks me to give him an answer on his suggestions, I should like to have a little time to study the implications of what he is considering.

Again I must remind the hon. the Minister of what he said when he introduced this measure. He intimated that there was no extension of power whatsoever in this Bill. I must refer again to clause 4, the exemptions clause. At the moment the position is that the controller may from time to time exempt certain persons or categories of persons from the provisions of the Act and he may exempt them to such an extent as he may wish. In terms of the new section 15(a) what do we find? We find that in fact there is an addition to the powers of the Price Controller—that he may exempt a category of persons or a person also from the provisions of any notice or order issued in terms of the Act. When we go back again to clause 2, we find the extensions which the hon. the Minister has made and the additional powers which he asks for there, and then we see that in fact this power of his, the power of the Price Controller to grant exemption, is in fact broadened. But we find that the worst part of this particular provision is the new subsection (b), where the Price Controller may, without assigning any reasons—which is the present law—withdraw or modify or substitute the exemption which he has granted. What is added now is a provision that he may do so without giving any hearing to the person or persons concerned. Up to now it has been implicit that the persons could have a hearing. I do not say that they always did have a hearing when the hon. the Minister withdrew any such exemption, but the possibility did exist that the person could have a hearing. I believe that it is imperative that the person who has had the benefit of an exemption, should also have a hearing and the opportunity of stating his case before such exemption is withdrawn. I do not believe that this has to be in the form of a tribunal or a court hearing with advocates or legal representation for the parties, but I believe that everybody should be given an opportunity to state his case. I do not believe that the Price Controller will act capriciously in this regard, or that he will act on impulse. I do not believe that there will be such urgency for the withdrawal of any exemption which will require that the exemption should be taken away immediately.

Order! Hon. members should not converse so loudly.

Thank you, Sir. It is obvious that those hon. members are not interested in this matter. [Interjections.] I would ask them whether they would be happy if exemptions which applied to them were removed without having the opportunity of stating their cases. I hear a lot of noise, but I do not get any answer. They must answer—“yes” or “no”. Do they believe that exemptions must be taken away without giving the person concerned an opportunity to state his case? [Interjections.] Sir, all I get is a noise, but no answers at all. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to me, because I believe this should be done. [Interjection.] Sir, the miners in this House do not know what goes on in business.

I believe that every person should be given the opportunity to be heard. It is a precept of our Western democracy. It is a cardinal principle, as my hon. friend here reminds me. Therefore I believe it would be a simple matter, where an exemption has been granted to a specific person, to notify him in writing that it is the intention of the price controller to review that exemption with the possibility that the exemption may be withdrawn, and ask him to put forward within a specified period and particular views he might have on the subject. I believe that if it is granted to a category of persons, it can be done by notice in the Gazette, and any person wishing to make representations regarding the withdrawal of an exemption should make those representations within a specified period.

I believe this is reasonable and in the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment to the effect that those concerned are to be notified in some way in order that they have an opportunity of stating their case if they feel that they have a case to make for the retention of the exemption.

In the few moments left to me I want to summarize. We are opposed to price control. We believe however that it has to be applied in certain circumstances. We believe that the money which the hon. the Minister and this Government is spending on price control, could be spent to far greater effect by subsidizing a proper consumers’ council which will educate the consumers to participate, because until such time as the consumers themselves will register their protest against overcharging, neither this Government nor any other Government will ever succeed in doing away with the malpractices which do exist and the overcharging that does take place. The money which the Government spends on the administration of this Act, should be used to educate the public and to get them to co-operate with …

Do you do it in your supermarket?

If hon. members on the other side really want a row, then I am quite prepared to participate in a row. I believe that that hon. member there is guilty of the most reprehensible conduct. Sir, what does he impute by asking whether I do it in my supermarket?

It is a nasty insinuation.

It is a nasty insinuation, and I believe that the hon. member should be asked to withdraw from the Chamber. [Interjection.] I want to say here and now that my conscience is clear while there may be hon. members on that side whose conscience is not. I want to come back to the question of the consumers’ councils …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member throw suspicion on the integrity of hon. members on this side of the House in such a manner?

Order! Will the hon. member explain in which context he stated that his conscience was clear while those of other hon. members might not be clear?

As regards the pricing of goods in my supermarket, my conscience is clear.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I was making the point that what is required, is the encouragement of a strong consumers’ council and the building up of consumer resistance to overcharging. It is only consumer resistance which will control it. It is still the strongest control, particularly in a country like this where we do not have monopolies. The Government has the necessary legislation to control monopolies. Although I do not believe this sort of legislation is necessary, we shall support it on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the contribution by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is in sharp contrast to the previous two contributions from that side of the House concerning this vital matter. Those two contributions attested to profound thinking with regard to this matter. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South came along, and what did he do? He immediately tried to make a little political capital out of a matter which one could really have kept out of politics. What did he do? He said that there was no-one on this side of the House who supported the hon. the Minister. What does he want to imply thereby? He wanted to give out that this side of the House did not have the courage of their convictions to support the hon. the Minister on the principle of this matter. However, when one looks at this matter, surely the conscience of this side of the House is clean. The members on that side of the House are the last people to talk about this matter, because they came along this afternoon with a totally different standpoint to that which they adopted in the past. On every occasion that the Government has come to the House and stated that it was necessary for certain control measures to be adopted, what has the Government had from the Opposition? The Government has only had opposition, and furthermore it has been very negative opposition. I looked up what happened in 1964 when the principal Act was adopted. What was said about the legislation at the time by the Opposition? Efforts were made to discredit it by allegations such as the following—

That is what the Opposition said. However, they did not stop at saying that they did not support the measure; they took the most extreme step by forcing a vote on the matter. There are still members of the Opposition sitting here in the House this evening who, although they now maintain that they support the Government in connection with the measures it wants to adopt, go ahead and cast their votes against the principle of the principal Act. The Opposition cannot get away from that. After 12 years they realize that they have been wrong all this time and that the Government was in fact right when it came to the House at the time and said that it was essential that the measures be adopted. It has been rightly said a number of times this afternoon that this legislation is so effective that it has only been necessary to alter it once before today. In my opinion this is a tribute to the Government, a feather in the cap of the Government, because it displayed such farsightedness in introducing such important legislation and making it so effective that it has not been necessary to amend it more than once. This is in sharp contrast to the standpoint which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South tried to adopt.

Apart from the fact that the hon. member came here with an argument about matters which could be better dealt with at the Committee Stage, he advanced the argument that the proposed amendments gave the Government and the hon. the Minister too many powers. What powers are now being granted which are supposedly so wide as to cause difficulties? I want to suggest that as regards this matter, too, the Government’s conscience is clear. I challenge the Opposition this evening to furnish a single example of the Government, in terms of this legislation, doing anything which would indicate that the Government and the hon. the Minister to whom the administration of this legislation is entrusted, have exceeded their powers or acted with unnecessary force. The contrary is true. If ever a piece of legislation has been essential for the protection of the consumer public, then it is this legislation.

I had a look at what happens in practice. We find that over the period 1 January 1975 to 31 December 1975, a total of 2 975 actions were laid in the Republic, resulting in 2 323 convictions and the imposition of fines amounting to R88 251. To me this furnishes proof that it is essential for the Government to take certain powers upon itself. In the Cape alone, 354 charges were laid last year, resulting in 344 convictions and the imposition of fines amounting to R17 000. Now, one should consider in respect of which items there were convictions. What was the nature of the offences? In the Bill the word “advertisement” is so defined that the man who hides goods under the counter can be charged if he does not put the price on such goods. For a commodity such as sugar there were 74 offences committed last year in the Cape alone. Forty offences were committed in respect of margarine, 13 in respect of fruit juices, eight in respect of cigarettes and three in respect of paraffin. Prices of specific articles must be indicated—the Bill specifically provides for that—but nevertheless 205 offences have been committed in this regard. When one takes this into consideration one realizes that the time has come for the powers in terms of the legislation to be extended to make the implementation of the Act more effective. I should like to look the general public in the eye in the knowledge that the Government is here engaged in doing things in the interests of those people. On the other hand, it is on record, too, that this hon. Minister has said that we should not merely adopt a one-sided view. He said that he did not want to have or implement these measures unless it was absolutely essential to do so. But he did say that he was also prepared to consider the other side and ensure that the interests of that side, too, were protected and that their interests were looked after.

In conclusion, I think it is justified to convey a message of special appreciation here to the Price Controller and his staff, who, basically, are concerned with the implementation of this Act, for the trouble they take to look after the interests of the general consumer public, and on the other hand, also for the very fine and smart way in which measures have been adopted to allow a difficult piece of legislation to function so well in practice.

Mr. Speaker, let me continue from where the hon. member left off. I should like to start by paying a tribute to the Price Controller who, by the way, holds many other offices. I agree with the hon. member that the role the Price Controller plays is a very important one for consumers in South Africa. I think he has a very difficult role to play, and the consumers of South Africa can be grateful for the way in which he is discharging his obligations.

The second point of the hon. member I should like to take up is in connection with the list he gave of the prosecutions that have taken place. I regret to say that I differ from him on this point, because I believe there are insufficient prosecutions in terms of the legislation. I believe it is not enough to pass laws—the laws must also be enforced. With the present establishment for the office of the Price Controller, I believe he is operating with at least one of his arms tied behind his back. I believe we need more staff there in order to ensure that the laws that are passed are also enforced. I think this is very important.

Another point I wish to raise is that of free enterprise—which has now suddenly become a subject of discussion again in this House—and its relationship to price control as such. I believe—I think there are many of us in this House who believe the same—that inflation is a major threat to a free enterprise system. Speaking of free enterprise I do not mean that someone by reason of his wealth, his knowledge, his education and his position, has to have an advantage over any other person. One of the duties of the legislature is to ensure that in a free enterprise system there is equality in the bargaining position of individuals in our society. Unfortunately there is not equality in the bargaining position in South Africa at present. There are people in South Africa who, by reason of a lower education, their age and other factors leading to their being underprivileged, are not in a position to exercise equal bargaining power with others in the free enterprise system. This is why it is necessary to have legislation and to take other steps to ensure that that equality of bargaining exists. Much as I dislike control and support the free enterprise system, I believe that in order to achieve this equality in the bargaining position, one has to introduce certain legislative measures, and if one does that, it does not mean one is against free enterprise. It merely means that one is actually advocating the cause of free enterprise by restoring the equality in the bargaining position.

One need merely take the simple example of the inability of aged people. It is all very well to say that in a free enterprise system a person doés not have to go and buy at the shop at the comer if he does not like that shop, but how must people get around? How can the aged test the market to know where they can get an article at the lowest price? One of the things which I find the public as such objects to is the tremendous difference in prices of identical goods from shop to shop. I want to give two examples of this. These are examples to which I myself can testify. One of these can be ascribed to the free enterprise system, because it does not concern a basic commodity. But the other cannot be charged to the free enterprise system. In mentioning these examples in the House, I shall not refer to the names of the firms concerned. I can give the hon. the Minister the names privately if he wants them. A specific camera is sold by two different shops in Johannesburg at a price of R405 and R259 respectively. No one can tell me that the man who is selling the camera for R259 is not making an adequate profit and that the man who is selling the identical camera for R405 is not, in fact, exploiting the public. However, in the case of cameras the argument can be advanced that people who can buy cameras at those prices can look after themselves in other respects. But let me give another example. I myself can testify to this. In the one shop in Cape Town a certain type of cheese in a box was sold for 76 cents while at a shop across the road the identical article was being sold for 49 cents at the selfsame time.

Was it imported?

No, it was not imported. The particular box of cheese was of the same brand and by the same local manufacturer. The two articles were of the same weight and, indeed, identical in every respect. To me that is the grossest example of exploitation by price differential. I believe the public is sick and tired of seeing this taking place. No one can convince me that if the man who is selling it at 49 cents can afford to sell it for that price, someone else a couple of hundred yards away should be entitled to sell it for 76 cents. It does not make sense. These are things which, with respect, need attention. I have said before in this House, and I shall say it again, that I believe the exploitation of people, particularly of underprivileged people, is something we cannot tolerate in the type of society in which we live. The practice of overcharging can have far more serious consequences than meet the eye. I think that as far as this kind of thing to concerned, particularly with regard to underprivileged people, people who are struggling to survive and who are perhaps living on the poverty datum line, is something in respect of which we on these benches are more than prepared to help the hon. the Minister should he want to stamp this out. We believe that this practice must be stamped out.

There is another matter to which I want to refer. At a time when prices are increasing because of automatic increases in costs, there is another type of cost increase which takes place only because the public is so used to prices being high. There are people who think they can charge higher prices because the public believes that everything is going up and that, therefore, they can get away with almost anything. Again one finds that, in an age in which we have to fight inflation one still has the situation that, because the public has been conditioned to price increases, those who seek to exploit the situation get away with it.

I want to say that while there may be technical things in this Bill about which we are not happy, we nevertheless want to support its Second Reading in order to demonstrate our support for action against exploitation in South Africa, action which we believe is necessary at this particular point in time. We feel tremendously strongly about this.

When I now deal with some of the details, I do not want to appear to do so in a spirit of destructive criticism; I want it merely to be seen in the context that we feel strongly about this. However, we still have to deal with what are the ordinary basics of the Bill.

I do feel that the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation as to why there are different definitions of “advertise” and “sell” in this Bill and in the Trade Practices Bill. I have compared the two and I must tell hon. members that, unless there is a very good reason which can be specified in detail, I will not be convinced that there should be differences. If we have to interpret and if people have to be sure as to what is meant by particular terms I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is easier for the application of the law if similar definitions exist in pieces of legislation which relate to consumerism. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not agree to have a look at the situation and whether it is not possible to have consistent definitions in the whole of the consumer legislation, particularly the two pieces we are going to deal with during this session of Parliament.

If I may, I would now like to deal with the question of clause 2 and the conditions that can be imposed in terms of it. The hon. the Minister has given certain assurances across the floor which we obviously accept. However, I think it should be pointed out that there can be conditions imposed in respect of the sale of goods which are obviously undesirable. I think there is a classic example where, already, there is a Government Notice in respect of the pyramid type of selling, where people were obliged to undergo a course of training in order to purchase a particular commodity. All these things may need this type of provision. We are trusting the hon. the Minister to some extent with a provision that could go very much further. He could use it for other things for which it is perhaps not intended. However, in the circumstances, it does appear that, in respect of the sale of goods, certain restrictions in respect of the imposition of conditions must be imposed.

When it comes to the gathering of information we have exactly the same thing. I believe that this could be abused. If the authorities wanted to abuse this, I think they could. However, on the other hand it is essential that one should be able to gather information for the purposes of deciding whether to impose price control …

That is the whole point.

… and for the purpose of deciding whether to impose conditions. That is why, as much as this again gives a wider power, I think in the circumstances we will certainly support the Second Reading, because this seems to be something that is necessary.

Lastly, there is the question of clause 4. When one deals with a category of persons and can possibly be acting in a discriminatory fashion against one section of the business community as against another, then it is a question that has to be dealt with very carefully. As the hon. the Minister knows from my attitude on the Trade Practices Bill, one should not really be able to distinguish between categories of persons where this is not absolutely essential for particular purposes of legislation.

The one thing in this respect which I think the hon. the Minister should consider is that, if one has exempted someone, there may, quite obviously, be circumstances why one should revoke that exemption. In the profession which both the hon. the Minister and I practised, it is an elementary principle that in fact one must give people a hearing wherever it is possible to do so, because one may be doing an injustice if one does not apply the audi alteram partem rule. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether in fact such an amendment should not be accepted in these circumstances.

I raise these things because I think they need to be said. However, I would like to make it clear that so far as we in these benches are concerned, we believe that steps must be taken to avoid exploitation of the public at this very crucial time in the economic history of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I listened with interest to the hon. members who have spoken. I want to stress one point: If hon. members opposite were to apply the energy with which they attack each other, towards making a contribution to the improvement of the legislation, we should have made much more progress. However, we have repeatedly had the spectacle which we come across in virtually every debate. Apparently the hon. members opposite are more interested in scoring points off each other than improving the legislation we have to consider. [Interjections.] I want to illustrate this.

The contributions made before and after dinner by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, differ substantially. [Interjections.] He can provide the explanation for this, but I can only say what I suspect. In all fairness I want to ask the hon. member to tell me who on this side of the House has ever maintained that price control is an instrument with which to combat inflation. Nevertheless, the hon. member argued as if someone had made a statement to that effect. It is on record that all of us on this side of the House have said that price control is a negative measure and that it cannot contribute towards combating inflation but can only be applied in order to restrict people who exploit others.

The second point I want to make concerns the fact that after dinner, the hon. member made a plea for free enterprise in our economy. However, I want to ask the hon. member since when this has been an untouchable holy cow. I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville: If we want to uphold the system within which we operate, then we must eliminate from the system those people who destroy it. That is why we use a negative measure, viz. price control, not to replace our system, but to eliminate or to punish, in all fairness, those who undermine the system by exploiting other people.

I shall now deal with the legislation itself. I want to thank the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for supporting the legislation. I think he did well not to advance the kind of criticism advanced by his colleagues, but to leave that to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. It suits the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to do so better than the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens.

I do not need any compliments from you, Chris.

You do not need it, and you will not get it either; you do not deserve it.

*I now want to deal with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens who raised a valid point. He said that in terms of clause D(k) of the manifesto, we undertook to draw up any legislation affecting other people in consultation with the people so affected. The hon. member is correct when he states that this did not take place in this instance. I want to apologize at once to the hon. member because this was an omission on our part. I have already explained this to organized trade, and I hope that the hon. member accepts this.

I want to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp for his contribution. He approached the legislation from the right point of view. He did not seek sinister motives and argue about technicalities in order to support the legislation and then, in effect, make it purposeless. The same applies to the hon. member for Springs. I want to thank that hon. member, too.

What is the basis of the criticism levelled by hon. members on the other side of the House? Hon. members argue about the definition of “advertise”. Both Opposition parties have amendments on the Order Paper. In other words, when they studied the legislation they tried to identify its defects as they saw them. The hon. members of the official Opposition found a defect in clause 2 relating to the powers of inspectors. The proposals to improve the legislation are in the form of amendments appearing on the Order Paper. The second Opposition found a fault in clause 4. According to them the fault lies in the legal rule, viz. that the other party should be given a hearing. This is a fair argument. However, we must bear in mind that the debate is not only being conducted about the effectiveness of the legislation. It is also being conducted in order to determine whether we can score points off each other in another province during an election. They ask: Why do we have one definition of “advertisement” in one piece of legislation and another definition in other legislation? After all, this “other legislation” to which the hon. members refer has not yet been passed by the House. If hon. members think that that definition is wrong, they can move that it be amended. Hon. members are not arguing today about the correctness or otherwise of the definition of “advertise”. However, that is what we are now considering, viz. making the definition of “advertisement” acceptable for the purposes of this legislation, but hon. members are not arguing about that. They have now set up a clay pigeon for themselves in order to argue for the sake of arguing, not for the sake of improving the legislation. The second point I want to make is that the definition of “person” for the purposes of the population register differs from the definition of “person” in the Companies Act, not so? Surely there are circumstances in which definitions vary according to the purpose of the legislation. I am prepared to listen to hon. members if they tell me that the definition of “advertise” is incorrect for the purposes of the legislation that we are now considering, and I am prepared to accept an amendment in that regard if they can convince me that it is wrong. However, they cannot argue with me by saying that there is another definition in a different Act, and that for that reason we should accept this one.

The second basis of the argument relates to clause 2. Here the prohibitory clause in the existing section is altered so as to include an instruction, too, in other words, a positive provision. I have explained the purpose of this, and not a single hon. member argued against it or said that I should change it. All they did was to conduct a theoretical discussion about it. As far as clause 3 is concerned, the hon. member stated that the powers which I gave the inspectors in terms of that clause were unlimited and too wide. The hon. member moved an amendment which, if we were to accept it, would render the entire clause completely meaningless. He proposes that we omit certain words and substitute the following words: “… other information as may be directly relevant thereto”. Relevant to what? The hon. member debated this point and I want to reply to him in this regard.

I shall show you tomorrow how stupid your argument is.

Order! The word “stupid” is sometimes used in this House, but I feel it is a word which we should rather not use. The hon. member would be doing me a favour if he were to withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should rather allow certain things; it increases my debating ability. As far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon. member should talk differently in principle, because after all, the information the inspector may request need not concern only the commodity or circumstances already under control. I tried to explain that we have often required such information in order to determine whether articles should be placed under price control. After all, the long title of the legislation limits the scope of the information which inspectors may require people to provide. Surely the hon. member knows that that is where the restriction lies, and if he does not know it, he ought to consult someone who does—even though that person is not on his side of the House. As far as clause 4 is concerned, I do not intend to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North this evening since he apologized for being unable to be present here this evening. However, I want to say that when we look at the existing section 15, we shall find that the Price Controller already has the powers to take certain steps without consultation. All we are now doing is giving him the power, in cases where he can exempt people from the provisions of the Act and where there is doubt as to whether he can exempt people from a notice issued in terms of the Act, to do that too. Then, too, he must have the power to amend the conditions. It is true, of course, that it is a general principle that people who are affected are consulted. However, if there is one thing which my department does, it is to go out of their way to consult in advance people who are affected by administrative decision or legislation. That is why I want to say this evening that it is unnecessary in terms of the experience which all private sectors have of my department to take all these technical provisions. We enter into the spirit of consultation with the sectors affected by our legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The principal object of this amending Bill is to augment the provisions of the State Land Disposal Act, 1961, so that a statutory body such as the State Tender Board and the Board for Public Resorts, Transvaal, may under certain circumstances be empowered to lease State land. At the outset I should like to point out that the principal act already makes provision for the delegation of such powers to an administrator of a province or an officer in the service of the State. However, that Act does not cover cases where the lease of State land for certain purposes is regulated by a provincial ordinance.

The factual position is that in the past certain Government departments frequently make use of the State Tender Board to regulate the leasing of State land. This method was adopted, for example, for the leasing of parking facilities and display cabinets at airports, as well as the leasing of business concessions with accompanying shop space in State schemes. The powers of the State Tender Board under the State Tender Board Act is limited to the acquisition of contractors and services, and the alienation of movable State property. Consequently the Board has no power to conclude a lease in respect of State land. Since the alienation of immovable property, which includes leasing, is regulated under the State Land Disposal Act, the Government law advisers are agreed that the latter Act ought to be suitably augmented to make it possible for powers to lease State land to be transferred in terms of the law to the State Tender Board.

A further reason for this proposed amendment is, as already mentioned, to make it possible to empower to such a body as the Board for Public Resorts of the Transvaal as well, which was established by ordinance, to lease State land within a proclaimed public resort for a purpose other than the normal purposes of such a resort. In terms of the said ordinance the Board may only lease land within a public resort for purposes relating to the control and management of such a resort. There is no statutory power under which such land may be leased for another purpose.

†In some public resorts, however, the Board for Public Resorts has land available in excess of its immediate requirements. Such land can profitably be utilized for other purposes until such time as it is required for the purposes of that specific resort. However, it is not possible to lease such land in terms of the Ordinance without first amending the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. An alternative solution which is acceptable to the Provincial Administration is to arrange for the lease of such redundant land to take place in terms of the State Land Disposal Act. This, however, would mean that this Act has to be amended as proposed in this Bill.

I would also like to mention the situation in Pilgrim’s Rest which is a public resort in terms of the relevant ordinance. In order to prevent this town from becoming a “ghost town”, the board allows private persons and bodies to occupy the houses, businesses and also some church buildings on a basis of lease for their own purposes. The provincial authorities have obtained legal opinion to the effect that such leases cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of the functions of a public resort. The proposed amendment of sections 2 and 7 of the State Land Disposal Act, however, will now create measures in terms whereof powers can be delegated to the relevant board to lease the sites, together with the existing buildings, for any other purposes.

*It will be observed that the State Tender Board and the Board for Public Resorts are not specifically mentioned in the proposed amendment. It is foreseen that there may in future be similar bodies to which delegation of such powers might be justified. Consequently a general provision is being made. Delegation of leasing powers to such specific bodies will, however, be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

The repeal envisaged in clause 3 is merely a correction of an oversight since the section concerned should already have been repealed when the Land Settlement Act was repealed by the Agricultural Credit Act in 1966. This amendment is therefore of a consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the peace and tranquillity which is so usual in this House of a Wednesday evening to give the support of the Opposition to this Bill. It is a small Bill, having only three clauses, but I believe it to be an important Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in introducing it, has mentioned the Board for Public Resorts of the Transvaal and the situation at Pilgrim’s Rest, which is a public resort, a situation concerning which the provincial council feels that further provisions should be made to legalize it.

However, I believe this Bill goes a good deal further than that and I should like to pose a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this connection. In parts of the Cape Province and Natal there is State land known as the Admiralty Strip, which runs along the coast of our provinces. We also have in the Cape Province vast areas of State forests, particularly in my constituency at Alexandria. The Alexandria State forest, which is a large forest, has tongues which stretch along the coast between the beaches and privately owned land away from the coast. Clause 3 provides that—

and entrust the leasing thereof to councils or other bodies. In that particular clause I envisage local authorities such as municipalities and divisional councils as we have in the Cape Province, borough councils as we have in Natal and possibly the Lake Areas Board. We have had beach amenities reserved for the Coloured people in certain parts of our provinces. Where the beach is available and the private-owned land on the other side of the narrow strip of the reserve is available for development, but every time the people want to go down to the beach to bathe, or to fish they have to get a permit from the Department of Forestry to do so. This is an instance where the provisions of this Bill could relieve the strain on race relations terrifically. I know of some local authorities which have been battling for years to get a permanent right of way across that narrow strip of land to the beach. I do know that in certain instances friction is arising between the race groups. I ask the Minister please to confirm whether something can be done about this under the Act or not.

Another thing which we on this side particularly appreciate is the fact that State land here can only be leased to statutory bodies or local authorities. In years gone by some State land was leased and actually sold in some cases to private individuals. This also caused a great deal of difficulty and ill-feeling in certain areas. This new provision we appreciate very much and we give the Bill our support. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication as to whether the Bill can be utilized to improve the accessibility of beaches made available for other races along our coasts.

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to support this Bill. I think that it is a need which has existed for some time and that it will make the task of the departments concerned very much easier in carrying out their responsibilities. Much of the land in South Africa which has not been damaged by being used for either agricultural, industrial or public purposes, is land which is under the control of the State. This is some of the best and most beautiful land. I believe the State has a particular responsibility to see to it that where State land is being leased, for whatever purpose, the most vigorous controls should be applied to see that the land is not desecrated or destroyed but that it is kept in good condition for the country and its people. This legislation will assist in that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Albany sincerely. He said that it was a tiny little Bill, but he should undoubtedly have added that it was a very good little Bill. This entire matter revolves around leasing, and nothing else. It concerns the leasing of State lands, and that such leasing may be done by statutory bodies with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. The two hon. members foresaw some problems. If they are able to make out a good case for the establishment of a statutory body and we try to make another a good little Bill, it will be possible to do so with their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, agriculture has the responsible task of supplying man’s vital food requirements, and in addition of supplying raw materials to the secondary industries. The race between population growth and food production is giving many experts and responsible bodies cause for concern. The maximum yield from every unit of land is becoming ever more essential. This applies in the Republic in particular, where the area of land which can be utilized for crop production is extremely limited.

The quality of the propagating material which is used is one of the determining factors in the yield of crop produce. A good year can only be fully utilized if material is used which can produce the best yields of quality produce. Even under unfavourable conditions the quality of the material frequently determines the measure of success which can be achieved. It is therefore in the national interests that the best available propagating material be made available to the producer and, what is more, that he makes full use of it.

In recent years there has been a marked improvement in the quality of seed, and farmers have also become more quality conscious. This may be attributed in the main to the control measures established in the Seeds Act of 1961, as well as the whole-hearted co-operation of the seed trade in their implementation. The success of this measure has led to various bodies requesting similar control over other propagating material such as saplings, cuttings, suckers, bulbs and tubers. The Bill which is before this House for consideration today, primarily makes provision for this. In order to establish similar control measures for all kinds of propagating material, these measures are being consolidated with those of the Seeds Act of 1961.

†Recent technical developments have caused the production and marketing of propagating material to become a highly specialized industry. Sophisticated processing equipment and skilled personnel are prerequisites for any enterprise wishing to supply only the best quality material to the farmer. The continued existence of dubious enterprises is not in the interest of increased food production. Provision is therefore made for the registration of all establishments where operations in connection with propagating material are undertaken. Such registration shall be subject to compliance with conditions aimed at improving the quality of material which are offered for sale. Registration of an establishment will be proof that the accepted procedures are being followed there, and will also give it an official status. Official control of such establishments, which is necessary to ensure that the highest standards are maintained, will also be facilitated. I wish to emphasize that the owners of the majority of these establishments have a proud record under existing legislation. They fully realize their responsibility to supply only the best quality material to the farmer. I am sure that we can depend on their continued support in our endeavours to further the quality of propagating material. Provision is also made for the continuation of the varietal list already maintained in terms of existing legislation. Amendments in the procedure to recognize varieties and measures to facilitate the addition of names to the varietal list or deleting them therefrom are also deemed necessary.

International requirements in respect of a varietal list do not provide for any indication regarding the ability of an included variety to produce satisfactorily. The multitude of names in the varietal list hampers the average farmer in selecting the variety which would give the highest yield in his area. The Government must promote increased food production and, thus, the use of adapted varieties. The evaluation of the usefulness of a variety for agricultural or industrial purposes and the publication of the results of the investigation are, therefore, authorized by the Bill.

*Various schemes introduced under the Seeds Act of 1961 are already making a significant contribution to making seed of high quality available. Basically such schemes are established to control the important quality characteristics of propagating material produced in terms of such schemes. There is an indisputable need for it to be possible to certify not only seed, but all other propagating material as to trueness to type, quality and freedom from disease and pests. The Bill therefore makes provision for the introduction of various certification schemes, participation in which will take place on a voluntary basis. The material produced in terms of a scheme will have to comply with certain norms, and inspections will be carried out to control this. When material is officially set aside in terms of the scheme, the purchaser will therefore have a guarantee that it complies with the highest standards.

†The large-scale indiscriminate importation of propagating material, especially seed, is causing concern. It is in the national interests that propagating material shall be produced locally to an increased extent. The importation of propagating material of inferior quality is detrimental to local agriculture. The Bill therefore provides that imported material shall conform to at least the same standards as laid down for locally produced material. Other countries are maintaining extremely high standards of quality in regard to imports of propagating material, and to protect our export market, provision is made for official control over certain exports from the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill should have a beneficial effect on the quality of the propagating material available to farmers, and contribute towards increased food production. I should like to thank the South African Agricultural Union and various other interested parties for their support of the measures proposed therein.

Mr. Speaker, I rise now for the second time for the sake of agriculture in general and on behalf of this side of the House to support this Bill in the belief that it is the twin sister, or twin brother, of the Plant Breeders Protection Bill which was passed earlier this session and which brought us in line with the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties. Perhaps the timing should have been the other way about in that we should have protected the varieties first before we protected the breeders. We on this side of the House believe that this Bill will be an immense asset to our agriculture in general in the Republic—or at any rate to horticultural agriculture—and through the improvement of crops the animal husbandry side of agriculture. We consider this a well drafted Bill, though we will endeavour to improve it during the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Berea will deal with a proposed improvement to clause 25 this evening during the Second Reading so that the hon. the Deputy Minister may know what it is that we have in mind.

The presumption in clause 37 is something this side of the House is a little worried about. We shall no doubt also move an amendment to that in the Committee Stage. It is a bit tough to presume that a man is guilty and to demand of him that he prove that he adopted all reasonable measures to prevent an act or omission of the nature in question. Here I refer specifically to clause 37(1)(b). Clause 37(1)(c) introduces “the employee, manager or agent concerned”. This places a great onus on the farmer or on the owner of an establishment. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that one can order one’s manager or employee in the strongest possible terms not to do something, but that will not be sufficient as we see this clause. We shall endeavour also to improve the wording of this during the Committee Stage. Otherwise we welcome this Bill on behalf of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I found it very gratifying to hear the Opposition state unequivocally that they support this particular legislation. Nor did I expect anything else, because it is such an important piece of legislation that the Second Reading can and ought definitely to be supported by all the parties in this House.

The fruit industry is one of the most important branches of agriculture. Through the marketing of fresh, dried and canned fruit it earns valuable foreign exchange for South Africa, and assures a large percentage of our farming population of a livelihood. That is why it is of great importance that it should be ensured that only the best material is available as propagating material when orchards are established. Until very recently healthy and genuine plant material has not been available, and in many cases this is still true. This fact has caused great losses to be suffered and has frequently led to farmers being ruined. Fruit farming is a long-term enterprise, for when a fruit farmer establishes a plantation, he does so in order to have a productive enterprise for a period of 20 years or more. This requires major capital investment, and to make such an investment profitable, only the best material is good enough. Can hon. members picture to themselves what it would mean if a farmer, four or five years after he has established a plantation, had to ascertain that he was up against a virus or some other infection, or even material that was not true to type? The fruit industry is one of the oldest in South Africa. In fact the fruit industry was born on Saturday, 24 August 1652 when Jan van Riebeeck planted the first fruit seedlings here in the Cape. Since then the industry has grown into the colossus it is today. However, we have now reached the point where care should be taken that the industry is safeguarded. The plant improvement idea became very firmly rooted in the minds of fruit-tree breeders during the late ’forties, and specifically among men such as the late Prof. A. F. de Wet and Prof. Dr. S. J. du Plessis. Since then growers have begun to take a growing interest in improved material, but it was not possible to succeed in establishing an effective scheme in terms of which improved material could be made available. Only recently, with the establishment of the Plant Improvement Organization, has a positive attempt been made, and a sound foundation for this laid. Over all these years the research institutes of the Department of Agriculture have been actively engaged in breeding and improving cultivars, and making them available—which is of inestimable value—and releasing them to the industry, although they were sometimes lost again.

I should now like to devote a few minutes of the time of this House to paying a tribute to plant breeders at the research institutes. In the Second Reading debate on the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the work of departmental researchers. These people breed and improve new cultivars, which are made available to the industry, without their receiving any material recognition for this. Very frequently they are accorded no recognition of any kind. I want to refer specifically to the fruit industry, of which I have first-hand knowledge because I have been active in that industry all my life. There was a time when the fruit industry was exclusively dependent on imported cultivars, which did not comply completely with expectations and demands. Frequently, too, they were quite disappointing. On the other hand we are today, as far as peach cultivars are concerned, making almost exclusive use of South African-bred cultivars which are excellent and unsurpassable. Reference has been made in a previous debate to the Kakamas peach, which was a fortuitous mutation. However, it is a cultivar which could be used as foundation for the breeding of quite a number of excellent cultivars which would each occupy an irreplaceable position in the canning industry. I also want to refer to table peaches, or as they are colloquially known, “dessert” peaches, table grapes, wine grape cultivars, and all the other fruit varieties bred by breeders of the research institutes. Those officials are dedicated, inspired people possessing the greatest ability and skills.

I want us to place on record in this way that we have great appreciation for their work. The South African Nurserymen’s Association has, through awarding a number of gold medals, given recognition to nurserymen who have done exceptional work in the department. We shall again give recognition in this way in future. What these people are doing, cannot be rewarded in terms of money. I have referred to the breeding of new cultivars by the research institutes. This is done at very great expense with taxpayers’ money. This breeding process is very important in respect of new, productive cultivars, but it is equally important that improved material should be available. It would serve no purpose to make a productive cultivar available only for the producer to find when it comes into production that the material is vims infested and the orchard has to be replaced after a very short lifetime. Without going into details I can assure this hon. House that we have now reached the stage where super grade material is available or is in the process of becoming available—and now this material has to be protected. We cannot be allowed to lose it. For this purpose the S.A. Plant Improvement Organization has now been established under the control of the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Canning Fruit Board, and the Dried Fruit Board, who each have two representatives on the controlling committee. The controlling committee is further augmented by advisory members of the Department of Agriculture, of the S.A. Nurserymen Association and of the control boards themselves. The object of the scheme is to handle all improved material and to distribute it on a national level. Then, too, we still have the plant improvement scheme of the KWV and others. I think the hon. members will find it interesting to know how the schemes work. But for the purposes of this debate it is not necessary to go into this matter too deeply. What is of cardinal importance here is that it should be ensured that the super grade plant material, the propagating material, is not lost. This legislation is aimed at creating order once and for all now, and affording protection. For this purpose it makes provision for a registrar, who will be responsible for the administration of the scheme.

Nurserymen who wish to participate on a voluntary basis will have to register under the scheme and will have to comply with certain requirements, of which the labelling of cultivars is a very important requirement. This Bill makes provision, in clause 15, for the maintenance of a varietal list, which meets with general approval, because there was great confusion in the past in regard to trueness of name. It has frequently caused the producer great embarrassment, and very frequently it was the cause of major financial loss. Now it will no longer be able to happen again. The Bill also provides that nurseries shall in future register under this legislation and no longer under the Agricultural Pests Act, as in the past. This is necessary for the more efficient administration and control of improved material. This meets with general approval.

In conclusion I want to say that we are now, with this legislation, setting the seal on the long and persevering efforts and work on making improved material available and protecting it. In conjunction with the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, which should in fact be seen as inseparable from this Act, the fruit industry is now entering a period of stability. The bodies concerned, namely the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association, and the Seed Growers’ Association, have now the opportunity to offer comment to and hold talks with the department on this legislation. I want to assure you that everyone is very happy about this legislation and welcomes it. Now the S.A. Plant Improvement Organization will be able to develop to the full. Mr. Speaker, it is therefore a very great privilege for me to give this Second Reading of this Bill my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members on both sides of this House are in wholehearted agreement with the sentiments expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Consequently we shall give this legislation our full support. During the Committee Stage there will be a considerable number of questions and quite a lot of comment in regard to certain clauses. At that stage we shall then elucidate our approach further. I content myself now with the assurance that we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Albany indicated, it is my intention to raise one brief matter during the Second Reading in order, I believe, to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to consider a suggestion which I intend putting forward by means of an amendment during the Committee Stage.

I refer to clause 25 of the Bill, which empowers the registrar or any officer authorized thereto in writing by the registrar to enter premises, carry out inspections, take samples for analysis and seize substances or articles at any reasonable time. I believe that any inspector who has powers of this nature should, in terms of the legislation enabling him to carry out his functions, be required in the first instance and before he carries out functions under the Act to show his authority to the person whom he is inspecting. I say so because I believe it leads to a better relationship between the inspector and the person to be inspected. I know that provision is made in certain legislation that an inspector shall display his certificate or authority of registration on demand, but I believe it is more desirable for an inspector to indicate his authority, without being asked to do so, when he intends carrying out an inspection. In order to illustrate clearly the intention that I have in asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider an amendment of this nature, I would refer him to one of many pieces of legislation where this provision applies. The one which I have in my hand now is the Hazardous Substances Act, Act No. 15 of 1973. I refer to section 9(2) in which it is laid down that if an inspector appointed in terms of the Act intends to exercise or perform any power, duty or function under the Act in the presence of any persons affected thereby, he shall first exhibit the written authority issued to him in terms of the Act. I believe that the incorporation of such a provision in this Bill will improve the legislation and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to this suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Albany for supporting this Bill on behalf of his party. He observed quite correctly that the two Bills in fact go together, and I think it is high time they were placed on the Statute Book. Consequently I welcome the discussion in this House. I want to agree with the hon. member that this Bill is a good piece of legislation, but it is of a technical nature. People who have a knowledge of the subject which it deals with—not he, nor I—worked on this measure for a long time. We have heard the comments of a person who is able to speak with authority on plant improvement, and on this scheme. If there are any amendments on the opposite side, I should like to ask the hon. members kindly to consider their amendments very thoroughly, and I even invite them to consult the officials and the hon. member for Middle burg in advance. As far as the hon. member for Bryanston is concerned, who stated that he will have a considerable number of questions and quite a lot of comment during the Committee Stage, I wonder whether it will not be advisable for him before he discusses these matters, to buy a cow. [Interjections.] As far as the hon. member for Middelburg is concerned, I may point out that, if I am correct, he is the chairman of the South African Nurserymen’s Association. He is a person who went into this Bill with his association very thoroughly and commented on it, because it is a Bill which affects their industry very intimately. They are doing good work. I want to thank the hon. member for the interesting and positive contribution which he made. I believe that since he has himself played a part in placing this legislation on the Statute Book, he will really be able to experience the full enjoyment of his fruitful efforts.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to explain briefly the reasons for the proposed amendments to the Water Act, 1956, as they appear in the Water Amendment Bill of 1976.

Clause 1:

In terms of the provisions of section 62(4) of the Act, the Minister of Water Affairs may after notice in writing to the owner of any privately owned water work situated within a Government water control area, construct such additional works or make such adjustments or repairs to the said works as may in his opinion be necessary for the measurement and regulation of any public water extracted or conveyed by such works or he can direct any such owner in writing to construct at his own expense and within a given period such additional waterworks, adjustments or repairs. Any expenditure which the State incurs in this regard is recoverable from any person who derives or is likely to derive any benefit from it. It is deemed advisable also to apply this provision to that section of the Vaal River which falls within the “limits of the works” in terms of the Vaal River Development Scheme Act of 1934 (Act No. 38 of 1934), which has not been declared a Government water control area and to which the provisions of section 62(4) do not, therefore, apply. The chief object is to install water meters in abstraction works in private possession in order to better control of the abstraction of water from the Vaal River.

Clause 2:

Section 66(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, for the levying of interest at the rate of 7% on arrear rates and charges levied in terms of section 66(1). Since the amendment of section 92(5) of the Act by section 17 of the Water Amendment Act of 1975 (Act No. 42 of 1975), irrigation boards have been empowered to impose interest on arrear rates at a rate not exceeding the rate which applies on a specific date in respect of State loans and advances by virtue of a notice referred to in section 1 of the Financial Adjustments Act, 1917 (Act No. 42 of 1917) and it is deemed advisable that similar provision be made in regard to to rates and charges in terms of section 66 of the Act. Section 1 of the Financial Adjustments Act of 1917 is replaced by section 26(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975 (Act No. 66 of 1975) as from 1 April 1976, and consequently reference is made in the proposed amendments to the substituting provision.

Clause 3:

In terms of section 109(2)(a) of the Act, a member of a water board appointed by the Minister in terms of section 109(1) holds office for a period of four years. In order to ensure continuity, the Act is now being changed so that the Minister is free to appoint members for such periods as he sees fit.

As far as clauses 4 and 8 are concerned, provision was made in section 4 of the Finance Act, 1975 (Act No. 72 of 1975) for the Minister of Water Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to be able to guarantee repayment of the capital of, payment of the interest on, and payment of any charges incurred in connection with, any loan raised under subsection (1) by a water board under the provisions of the Water Act of 1956. Actually it was intended to provide for this in the Water Act, but since the Water Amendment Act of 1975 had already been published when the need for such a provision became urgent and could not stand over, it was inserted in the Finance Act. For reasons of efficacy it is proposed that this provision be repealed in the Finance Act and that a similar provision be included in the Water Act of 1956.

Clause 5:

Mr. Speaker, the proviso to section 157(A)(a) of the Act relating to the submission of a report to, and the obtaining of the approval of both Houses of Parliament before an irrigation loan exceeding R150 000 may be granted, creates a difficulty with regard to interpretation, which must be rectified. As the proviso reads at present, the impression is created that it could be intended that where the revised estimate exceeds R150 000, a further loan is not granted unless a report on the proposed works is tabled in both Houses, irrespective of the fact that such a report has already been submitted for the purposes of the original loan for those works. It is deemed necessary, Mr. Speaker, to amend the article in question in such a way as to make it clear that the report to Parliament is only required when the estimated cost of a scheme exceeds R150 000, and such a report has not been submitted previously, or, in cases where a report has already been submitted, the revised estimate exceeds the previous estimate by R150 000.

Clause 6:

The proviso to section 162(2)(c) of the Act, Mr. Speaker, provides for the granting of a subsidy to a group of persons wishing to construct a waterwork jointly. In such a case, the amount of the subsidy which may be granted, may not exceed the amount determined by the Minister by regulation, in regard to each of the persons, but not exceeding in aggregate 33⅓% of the cost of such works. Furthermore, the granting of the subsidy is subject to the work in question being for the use of water for agricultural purposes, a limitation which does not apply in regard to the granting of subsidies in terms of section 162 on the cost of other water works. It is deemed necessary, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate this anomaly by suitably amending the subsection in question.

Clause 7:

Section 169A of the Act, which was inserted by section 25 of the Water Amendment Act of 1975, provides for the installment of the one in 50 years flood-line on the “general plan” of proposed residential areas or of the proposed extension of existing residential areas and for the granting of approval by the Minister for the establishment or extension of residential areas within certain areas. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the “general plan” is a plan which is only drawn up after approval of the establishment or extension of a residential area and in order to have greater clarity, it is proposed that the concept be replaced by “lay-out” plan.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that this Bill will enjoy general support.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a very important Bill, as we have heard from the hon. the Minister this evening. I am particularly pleased that the Bill provides for adjustments or repairs to privately-owned waterworks, particularly in the Vaal River area where much damage has been caused by flooding in the past. This is of course very important and has to be done.

We on this side of the House are also pleased to see that the Bill will enable the Minister or the department to amend the applicable interest rates. These interest rates have caused us much trouble in the past and those of us who have served on the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters will know that it has often happened that we have had to write off arrears in water rates, particularly in drought-stricken areas. The Minister now has the power to revise the interest rates, and this will be of great assistance to irrigators.

There is another matter I wish to refer to briefly. We know that in the past it has not been very easy to obtain subsidies on privately owned waterworks and projects which private irrigators have had to undertake. In the past it has been extremely difficult in fact to obtain subsidies from the department for this purpose. I believe that there is still much ground to be covered in this regard. Much research will have to be done into the subsidization of waterworks throughout the country. We know that water is not only playing a very important part in the economy of our country today; it will also be doing so to a great extent in the future, not so much in the form of irrigation of agricultural land, but in the form of the provision of water to our industries.

Mr. Speaker, there are various matters which we shall raise during the Committee Stage. We support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs on the introduction of his very first Bill as Minister of Water Affairs. It is also a pleasure for me to tell him that we know that he is going to make a great success of this post, just as he made a success of his previous portfolio. We can tell him with certainty that in this portfolio he will be sailing in much calmer waters that was the case as regards his previous portfolio of Bantu Development. Sir, the importance of water has been realized for centuries in South Africa. It is interesting too, to know that the first civil engineering work for which a contract was awarded in South Africa was carried out in 1670 under Jan van Riebeeck. In that year he awarded a contract to Wouter Mostert in terms of his water development scheme, the remuneration being 10 000 rix dollars. It is interesting, too, to know that even in the years of the Dutch East India Company the State exercised control of streams in South Africa. Consequently it is fitting that this Bill should provide for the exercising of further control of the water of the Vaal River.

The Rand Water Board, which is situated in my constituency, gets its water from the Vaal River, and supplies water to the region bounded by Sasolburg in the south and Pretoria in the north, Bethal in the east and Klerksdorp and Rustenburg in the west, an area known as the Vaal Complex and surrounding areas. This is the aorta of the South African economy. As I have said, this region is supplied with water from the Vaal River by the Rand Water Board. In this area live 4,2 million of South Africa’s inhabitants, or 20% of the population of the country. This region is the source of 60% of South Africa’s manufactured goods.

Until 1933, water consumption in South Africa rose by 3,4% per annum. At present the increase is 7%. In the region to which I have referred, served by the Rand Water Board, the increase will be still higher owing to the development and high productivity of the manufacturing industry there. Consequently it is as well, and in fact essential, that this legislation provides for the further control of the water of the Vaal River through compulsory installation of meters by people who abstract water from the Vaal River. At the present rate of increase of population, the population in this region may amount to 5½% million souls by the year 1990. It is as well, therefore, that this legislation gives us the assurance that sufficient water for further development will still be available from the Vaal River by that time. Consequently we on this side of the House gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Meyerton. I should like to join him in wishing the new hon. Minister well in this important post he has taken up. I hope he has great success in that portfolio.

*Mr. Speaker, in the 30 minutes at my disposal, I just want to say that we on this side support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my appreciation for the good wishes and support from all sides. This of course resulted in time being saved and it is encouraging to have had this co-operation. I thank hon. members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.