Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the last stage of an important financial measure which has been before this House for a very considerable time, in fact for fully two sessions. The contents of this Bill, however, go back even further than the time during which the Bill has been before the House, because they go back to the report of the Franzsen Commission which reported as long ago as 1970. This measure is a big step forward in implementing some of the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. This is an omnibus measure. It covers no fewer than nine different types of financial institutions—all important ones—but very largely unrelated to each other. I think that the most important features of the Bill are those amendments which cover the insurance industry and the banking industry, and there are also amendments to the Pension Funds Act which we find very welcome. This is also a highly technical Bill in the financial sense, which probably accounts for the somewhat meagre interest which hon. members of this House display in it, and probably also accounts for the fact that there are a number of members of this House who find the attractions of Loftus Versfeld field more interesting than the debate under discussion.

I do not propose in what I have to say at the Third Reading, to go over in any sort of detail the ground that was covered in the previous stages of this Bill. However, I do propose dealing with two features of the Bill which I regard as being very important. The first feature that I would like to deal with is that this Bill delegates very far-reaching powers in certain respects to either the Minister or the Registrar of Financial Institutions. The second feature I would like to deal with is that this Bill aims to improve certain aspects of our banking system and provide further safety for the savings of people and institutions which are entrusted or lent to financial institutions.

As far as the powers which this Bill delegates to the Minister and to the Registrar of Financial Institutions are concerned, the first one I would like to deal with is the power delegated to the Minister to limit commissions and remuneration paid by the insurance industry to intermediaries, i.e. brokers and agents. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister is not going to find it necessary to exercise this power and that he will be able to persuade the industry to put its house in order on a voluntary basis. I do not believe that in saying that I am saying anything that is beyond the realms of possibility. If the broking industry were to get together and, after consultation with the insurance industry, voluntarily set a scale of limits to their commissions, I consider that that would be a very big step forward in solving the problem which the hon. the Minister is trying to solve by this delegated power. It would be a very big step forward, because if the scale set voluntarily by the broking industry was a scale acceptable to the hon. the Minister, he would only have to exercise his delegated powers in respect of brokers who did not conform to the voluntary scale. I think it would also be a very big step forward towards transforming the broking industry into a profession with its own professional body. If that were to happen, the broking business might ultimately be recognized as a profession and given statutory status to control its own affairs. I believe that this is an ideal towards which that industry should work and, if it could achieve it, a lot of the problems which this power delegated to the Minister aims to solve, would be solved without him having to exercise it. However, if the hon. the Minister is unsuccessful in getting the industry to act voluntarily, he must act in terms of the powers of this legislation. I do appeal to him only to act after full consultation, not only with the association of brokers but also with the insurance industry itself.

I think it is important to recognize the need in fixing commissions to have great flexibility. There is a great variation in the degree of service which is rendered by various brokers to the insurance industry and to the insuring public. There also is a great variation in costs incurred by different brokers. I think that this is a fact that must be recognized by the hon. the Minister in exercising this power. You get brokers offering a comprehensive service which obviously is costly and brokers offering a limited service, and you get agents offering merely a sales service and you get agents offering a very comprehensive service. You also get chief agents who get a very fat commission as far as I can see for doing very little. I think what is needed from the Minister in using this delegated power is a very careful balancing act. The Minister is taking power to interfere with private enterprise by fixing commission but he must be very careful to do so without killing competition which is so necessary for the protection of policy-holders.

The second delegated power which is conferred by this legislation is conferred on the Registrar of Financial Institutions and it is to declare certain banking practices irregular and undesirable. There was a full discussion on this matter in the Committee Stage so I do not propose to discuss it very fully at this stage, but I would like to repeat that this is a power which can have very far-reaching consequences on the institutions affected by it. It can have very damaging consequences on businesses and, if it is not very carefully exercised, it could even kill certain financial institutions. I believe that this is a power which must be exercised with very great discretion and, wherever possible, only after consultation with the banking industry and with the institution concerned.

The third power which is being delegated in terms of this legislation is the power to the Minister to enforce disinvestment in South African banks by foreign shareholders until a position of parity is reached between foreign shareholders and domestic shareholders. We have made it very clear in the earlier stages of this legislation that we favour the principle of parity between foreign and domestic shareholders as it has many practical advantages. But what does matter, when you do not have it, is how you get to that position. We must avoid any impression that foreign investment is not welcome in South Africa. The Minister knows as well as I do that foreign money is not only welcome but very necessary, and the fact that this measure is seeking to force disinvestment by foreigners is contrary to the concept of attracting foreign capital. The position therefore calls for very great discretion and patience in exercising this power.

As far as all the powers which are delegated in terms of this legislation are concerned, the Minister did give the assurances during the earlier stages of the Bill that he would consult very closely with the parties affected. I regard this matter of consultation as being so important that we on this side of the House would be failing in our duty if we did not emphasize our attitude to it at this last stage of the Bill.

The other important feature of this Bill which I wish to refer to is the provisions it contains to improve our banking system and to increase the security of deposited money. I am not going to deal in any detail with the many amendments which affect this principle and are contained in the Bill. Many follow the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission and as such are generally welcomed by us. In particular we welcome the measures which bring under the control of the Banking Act fringe institutions dealing in the grey market. I regard it as very important that if a financial institution accepts a deposit of money and then lends that money to a third party and does not just act as an investment agent for the person depositing that money with the institution, then that institution should observe the liquidity and the solvency ratios laid down by the Banking Act. We in this country have a banking system of which we can be justly proud. It has a fine record of safety, a fine record of enterprise in developing the economy and a fine record of providing a comprehensive and efficient range of banking services. I believe that this Bill, by eliminating some of the fringe weaknesses which exist in the banking system, will be improving the system as a whole.

This is a lengthy and complicated piece of legislation, and I would therefore like to pay personal tribute to those who have been responsible for compiling and drafting the Bill. This includes Dr. Franzsen and members of his commission, many of whose ideas are embodied in this legislation, and also the Registrar of Financial Institutions who has added important ideas to it. Let me say that I have a very high regard for the ability of the Registrar of Financial Institutions and for the ability of the members of his department. I wish them well in the implementation of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia mentioned certain aspects in connection with this legislation. I have no fault to find with that and I am sure the hon. the Minister will react to it in due course.

However, I want to remark on one matter which he raised. He said the measure which we have here might be to our detriment especially when it came to investment in respect of foreign banks. He said quite correctly that investments from abroad were to be encouraged and welcomed by us. However, I should just like to mention in passing that what we are dealing with here, is the control of banks and the distribution and registration of their share capital. Therefore this does not relate to any large extent to the investment of capital in South Africa. Consequently I do not believe that this aspect can have detrimental effects for us.

The principle accepted at the Second Reading of this legislation, relates chiefly to the domestic and foreign possession of and control over financial institutions. In my opinion the acceptance of this is in fact a milestone in the history of banking and in the history of financial institutions in South Africa. As was emphasized during the Second Reading debate, this is a strategic industry.

I just want to point out that some uncertainty apparently still exists amongst certain bodies in this country, with regard to certain aspects of this legislation, bodies which in my opinion interpret the position quite incorrectly. I want to refer to Press reports that according to Hansard I allegedly said that the Government favoured commercial banks in South African possession above others in its support. I think this is a completely incorrect interpretation of the situation. In fact, this is not what I said in my Second Reading speech, and this is not what I think the Government envisages. I want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with favouring one bank above another and nothing to do with the implementation of a policy in respect of any preference which was mentioned in the Press. We are dealing with a measure applicable solely to the possession and control of South African banking institutions; that is to say, as I have already adduced, to the distribution and control of share capital domestically; to the compulsory registration of controlling companies; to the mutual linking of interests in subsidiaries and associates in respect of investment, property, etc.; and to the elimination of foreign control which, in my opinion, is advisable and is also accepted by the Opposition. According to reports this is also accepted favourably by all financial and banking institutions in South Africa and elsewhere.

In view of what is being enacted by means of this legislation, I think there are certain aspects which we shall have to bear in mind now and in the future in the implementation of the legislation. The first is—in my opinion this is the motivation for the legislation—a consolidation of this strategic industry in South Africa and the strengthening of the industry, its functions, its responsibility and its duty and place in the economy of South Africa. This must be done so that the industry may serve, inter alia, as the mechanism by means of which the Government’s monetary policy may be applied and implemented. In saying this, I have in mind, for instance, the application of present monetary measures, as envisaged and applied by the Reserve Bank. Henceforth it will be possible to apply such measures in a more disciplined fashion, because if the provisions of the Bill are going to be implemented to this extent, we shall be able to succeed in ensuring that the interests of South Africa and the interests of the economy of South Africa are served and not so much the various institutions’ own interests.

In implementing the Bill we shall have to and shall be able to consider very purposeful norms. In this regard I have in mind especially a selective registration of banking institutions so as to be able to guard against overcrowding. When I say “overcrowding”, I must point out at once that this is a very difficult criterion to define, but I nevertheless think that in the implementation of this legislation this is an aspect to which we should have regard in registering banks. We should have regard to this in view of the fact that abroad—in this regard I am thinking of Germany and America, for example—the mortality rate amongst banks has been particularly high in recent times. This is a position which we in South Africa shall definitely want to avoid in view of the fact that we should like to see our financial or banking institutions in South Africa particularly as institutions which enjoy the absolute confidence of the public since they are in fact the guardians of the public’s money.

It is alleged that approximately 94% of the public’s money is controlled by banking institutions and similar bodies. In order to implement the Bill we shall perhaps have to consider a clearer delimitation of functions and further diversification. It is a fact that the present dispensation reveals a completely new idea in connection with the banking industry. Some of the banks which are doing business at the moment, are specifically doing the work of a bank, but they also diversify. For example, they are also estate agents and administrators of estates. They even deal with third party insurance. I believe that these institutions are such prestige undertakings that, although diversification on a sound basis is right, we should ensure all the same that that prestige remains intact. This is of strategic importance. I believe that our banks and other financial institutions should have regard to the fact that they are specialized people and will be seen in that light and not as “jacks of all trades” to use a colloquial expression. In order to implement this legislation, we shall, in addition to these things, probably have to think of a more scientific delimitation of areas of operation and of an effective channelling of moneys. The following appeared in a Press report which I have here—

In other words, the people in this industry want to draw up a code in terms of which they will govern their industry. I also have in mind, for example, the short-term financing which will have to be handled by our banks and of the particular shortcoming existing in respect of short-term financing in our agricultural industry, something which is creating problems at the moment. Relations with the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit which hold the biggest amount of securities, sometimes create problems for banking and the commercial banks since people still have to fall back on them to a large extent to help provide short-term financing for the agricultural sector.

In conclusion I just want to say that in my opinion boundless confidence in banking and financial institutions is essential in South Africa. They are, as I have already said, indeed the guardians of the public’s money. The bank as well as the bank manager in South Africa is a very old traditional institution in the South African way of life.

With these few words I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, the Bill covers a very wide range of subjects. It would be inappropriate to endeavour to cover all these subjects in the very short time available to me. However, since we are dealing with virtually all the financial institutions in South Africa, I believe we have to look at the situation in which South Africa finds itself today and perhaps also at the situation in which the world finds itself today from an economic point of view. The world today is no longer the world of even a few years ago as far as economic and financial conditions are concerned. What I think is important is that in this time, a time which economically is quite a different time from what the past has been, our institutions should be sufficiently adaptable to meet the new conditions and the authorities should be sufficiently flexible to deal with them. What is especially important from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, is the survival and the integrity of the financial institutions of South Africa This is absolutely vital. Because this measure adds to that, although individuals in this House have suggested amendments and improvements, there is in fact complete unanimity as far as the acceptance of its principles is concerned. This debate, which has stretched over a long period, has shown that there is an acceptance by everyone that the survival and the integrity of the institutions is in fact vital. The authorities, because they have been given discretions in respect of a variety of matters in terms of this legislation, have an even greater responsibility to make sure that these institutions remain intact and strong.

One of the interesting things which we have to look at is that we whereas on the one hand the financial institutions represent a mobilization of savings and of funds which are surplus from time to time, on the other hand they in the main are a safeguard for the savings and on the other extend credit in respect of two matters, particularly in so far as the banking institutions are concerned. In the first place, they extend credit in order to produce, and in the second place they extend credit in order to consume. One of the features of modem life is that we now rely upon credit in order to enjoy a higher standard of living. One of the tragedies that have come about as a result of this is that we not only mortgage our assets as consumers, but that we actually mortgage our future. This is one of the matters that we need to look at, because credit for the sake of consumption which mortgages the future is in fact a dangerous phenomenon. This is something which we have to look at and it is something in respect of which the institutions have to be very careful.

One of the interesting things about this legislation is that as soon as we have passed this Bill, we shall have to deal with the next one. There are many things which have to be dealt with in future legislation in this regard. Let me give one example. One thing which is not dealt with in this piece of legislation relates to the Insurance Act. I believe that we need to look at the Insurance Act in two respects. Firstly, in respect of the terms of policies issued in South Africa, and bearing in mind that increasingly these policies are taken up by unsophisticated people, we should look at the conditions which may be imposed in them which are in fact prejudicial to the consumer who does not always read them or who, if he does read them, is not always able to understand them. I feel that we should look at that, to make sure that in terms of the Insurance Act conditions cannot be imposed which are prejudicial to the insured and which are not ordinary free enterprise conditions. In other words, we should seek a balance between those who can protect themselves and those who cannot protect themselves.

Secondly, Sir, I believe that an amendment is urgently required to section 38 of the Insurance Act. The Minister has said that he is looking into this. I believe that the days when, in the case of people serving in the forces, one could distinguish between those flying aircraft or conveyed in aircraft, and those who do not fly aircraft or who are not conveyed in aircraft, are over. I think such a distinction is prejudicial to those who serve in our Air Force, and in our forces generally, because it is also prejudicial to those who are conveyed by air. In my view this is a matter which should be urgently attended to. In the meantime, until the legislation is introduced, I believe that the office of the registrar should make it clear to the insurance companies that they should delete these provisions from their policies where they still exist, and that if they do not do so, retrospective legislation will be introduced from a date to be announced by the Minister.

The war clause?

Yes, the war clause. I believe this should be made clear to insurance companies so that there should be no argument in regard to this particular matter.

The issue I should like to deal with very briefly, is the issue of banks. Whereas large institutions give a high degree of security to depositors, we should not on the other hand create a situation where entrepreneurial spirit of our people is killed and where on can no longer start financial institutions, a situation where it is only the game of the big batallions. Whether or not one should have a minimum amount of capital, I still believe that the entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged and that, particularly in regard to merchant banks, those banks which lend themselves to entrepreneurial activity should not be kept quite so restricted in so far as licences are concerned or, if one may use the term, permission to conduct them. An entrepreneurial spirit is essential for the financial field, and I believe that entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, particularly in view of the restrictions that are now being imposed in respect of companies that are not banks and in respect of the acceptance of deposits.

The other matter which concerns me is that with the restrictions in respect of shareholdings, other than those which are still held substantially by particular institutions, we are now entering an era in respect of banks where, in fact, the executives are going to be in control of the banks. I believe that the next step that will have to be taken will be to make sure that no abuse can take place not only where there is a substantial shareholding—in regard to which the hon. the Minister holds a view with which we, perhaps, do not quite agree—but similarly, where one may find an executive in too powerful a position in a financial institution. With the type of banking institution we are seeking to create, we are making the executives into tremendously powerful figures.

I think the hon. the Minister might give us some indication of his views in respect of the so-called gyro system—who should, in fact, be involved in it, whether it should be left to banking institutions, or whether it is going to be headed by a semi-Government institution or the Government itself. What, in fact, is the hon. the Minister’s view in respect of this gyro matter? The matter has been investigated and there have been certain recommendations. There is a variety of views in respect of gyros and I should like to hear what the future has in store in respect of this matter.

The other matter I should like to raise again, a matter I touched upon during the Second Reading debate, is the issue of credit cards. I believe that the law should be changed to put all credit cards, whether they are being conducted by banks, or whether they are being conducted by other companies, under the control of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. They are a means of creating credit. They are as akin to a modem banking practice as anything there is today. I do not believe that one should have credit cards issued by banks under the control of the Registrar and, on the other hand, credit cards which are issued by other companies not under that control or, for that matter, any control. The Registrar can intervene with a bank and say that he regards a particular action as an undesirable practice. He can therefore keep a degree of control over the situation. However, he cannot do this when it is not a banking institution. I believe that all credit cards should also be placed under the control of the Registrar of Financial Institutions.

Would you also include a Buy-Aid card?

If the Buy-Aid card is similar to a credit card, then I think it should, as the hon. member suggests be included. However, I do not believe that one can include things which are not akin to credit cards. One has to draw a line somewhere in respect of this matter.

The hon. the Minister knows what my views are in respect of liquid asset requirements and in respect of the credit ceiling. Now that some considerable time has elapsed since the imposition of that credit ceiling, I think it is a not inappropriate occasion for the hon. the Minister to tell us whether there are prospects that this will be changed within a relatively short time. I do not want to deal with all the disadvantages which exist as a result of the imposition of the credit ceiling because I think the hon. the Minister is fully aware of them. He knows, as well as I know, that the ingenuity of man and the ingenuity of bankers is almost unlimited and that the credit ceiling may not be achieving what he has in mind. I think it is an undesirable situation and I believe he should rather return to the controls as contained in the Banks Act in order to deal with the particular position.

I should like to draw attention to another matter on which I would like a reaction from the hon. the Minister. We are dealing with NCDs in this particular legislation. We are taking them out of the securities which may be held by some of the institutions. The hon. the Minister did not accept the amendment in this regard, but I would like a reaction from the hon. the Minister in regard to the banks which take a very large percentage of their total liabilities to the public in the form of NCDs. According to the fairly recent returns this year, I see that in the case of some banks the NCDs go as high as 40%, while others go beyond that, of the total liabilities to the public. I wonder whether NCDs were actually intended to play that big a part in so far as individual banks are concerned, and whether the hon. the Minister has any views in respect of what should be done in regard to NCDs as a whole.

One can carry on at length in respect of the variety of matters concerning this piece of legislation, but I should like to touch on one last aspect, viz. the issue of pension funds. The saver of today has very little in which he can invest which is secure against inflation. The pension funds themselves are not secure against inflation. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not look at some particular form of investment for pension funds as opposed to his attitude of investing more and more of these funds in Government stock. If there is to be that kind of investment at an increasing rate, will the hon. the Minister not consider a Government bond specifically for pension funds which is, in fact, an indexed investment?

Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to consider making it a right on the part of an employee that after he has contributed to a pension fund for, say, 10 years and then leaves it, he be entitled as of right not only to his contribution plus a degree of interest, but also his employer’s contribution? Once a person has served for, say, 10 years, he should really get the benefit of it if he has to leave the pension fund. There should also be a legislative provision to make the transferability of pensions a compulsory matter. In other words, one should be able to transfer from one pension fund to another in terms of the law and it should not be necessary to start again if one changes one’s employment.

There are many other things I can mention, but as far as we are concerned I believe that despite some of the things which are not quite as we should like to have them, this Bill is a substantial improvement in respect of the legislation relating to financial institutions and therefore we support it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my support of the Bill to that of the hon. member for Yeoville. When one considers the extent to which the Bill goes, it is quite remarkable that only two clauses were opposed during the Committee Stage. I think this indicates that the House is unanimous that this Bill will add much to the interests of the commercial sector of our country and that it will not only be to the benefit of the country but also to all the people in it. However, I have one reservation, namely, that I still feel that the hon. the Minister is under the impression that the problems of the insurance industry relate mainly to commissions. If the hon. the Minister investigates these problems, and they are indeed problems, he will find that the commission problem is a red herring and that the problem actually is a far more fundamental one. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has expressed his reluctance to use clause 10 unless he feels that he is forced to do so. He also said that he would investigate the matter fully and acquaint himself with all the facts and that he would consult all the people concerned before he did use clause 10. If he does all that, he will find out for himself that the issue of commissions is a red herring, and that the problem is a far more fundamental one, and that using clause 10 is not going to assist him to solve the problems of the industry. I hope, therefore, that we can look forward to removing this clause from our Statute Books at some time in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to hon. members on both sides of the House for their support of this measure, a measure which has rightly been described as a very important financial measure. In fact, quite a number of measures have been combined in this one Bill.

The hon. member for Ermelo went to the root of the matter when he said that it is very important, that it is essential, for people to have the fullest confidence in the financial institutions of the country. That is certainly what we intend to achieve here by effecting improvements, where necessary, to the already existing legislation. This is really the purpose of this comprehensive legislation. Perhaps hon. members do not always realize what a pervasive influence is exercised by these institutions all over the country. It is not only a question of the thousands of millions of rands which these institutions have available to them. If one were to analyse the true extent of the activities of the institutions, one would realize how important it is that the legislation should be as effective as possible in regard to banking, insurance, building societies, pension funds, etc. I am glad that the hon. member for Ermelo also removed certain misunderstandings, misunderstandings which arose in consequence of reports which appeared in the Press after the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think he made his personal point of view quite clear.

†The hon. member for Constantia thanked all the officials and others responsible for bringing forward this comprehensive measure, going right back to the Franzsen Commission, and also the Registrar of Companies and others who participated. I appreciate his sentiments because these measures have involved a tremendous amount of work, and one is therefore really glad to see an appreciation of that on all sides of the House.

As far as the various points are concerned that the hon. member raised, I think he and the hon. member for Randburg can rest assured that, as far as clause 10 is concerned and the question of possible control over the commission payable to intermediaries, the position is as I have tried to explain it earlier. I certainly hope that the industry itself will be able to arrange these matters domestically and I am quite sure that it can be done. After all, in the long-term insurance business an agreement already exists. It may not be perfect, and the Government constantly consults with the industry through the Registrar’s office. However, an agreement exists, and I am sure that it is not beyond the capacity of the short-term insurance industry to come to an effective agreement which will protect the interests of all parties. After all, there are several parties concerned. There is the insurance industry, there are the brokers themselves, the intermediaries and, of course, the public. This is the object and I certainly do not wish to intervene in a matter such as this from the Government side if the industry can handle its own affairs in an effective and reasonable way, which, as I say, I believe they can do.

The hon. member for Constantia referred again to other types of delegation of powers to the Minister and to the Registrar and to the need to be discreet in applying them. He also referred to the question of what one might refer to as the disinvestment of foreign financial institutions which have shareholdings in South African banks, and asked that we should not give any impression that we are not sufficiently aware of the importance of foreign capital. I think that he can rest absolutely assured on that point. All that we are trying to do, of course, is to assure that at this stage of our development, where we have evolved in this country a remarkably sophisticated and efficient banking system, we would perhaps have a little bit more of a South African flavour at this time. This is something which in fact is completely in line with the thinking in all countries of the world. One only has to look at the position in Canada, Australia and a number of other countries to see that they have gone further than we are going now in this respect. Therefore, I can give that assurance.

The question of prior consultation with interested parties is something which is very much, not only in our minds, but also in conformity with the whole approach of the authorities through the registrar’s office. I think that the Registrar and his small group of officers do manage to conduct these consultations on a remarkably wide-ranging scale.

With regard to the question of the grey market, the keeping of a watchful eye on what might be termed the fringe institutions, and where they indulge in banking operations, to bring them in under the provisions of this Act, is a very difficult matter, as the hon. member knows. We shall constantly watch that situation.

The hon. member for Yeoville made the point, amongst others, that when we are dealing with legislation affecting several financial institutions, we are in fact involved in a continuing process. This is correct. One never really reaches finality. In any case one can never reach perfection. In the light of experience we are constantly trying to improve, and this is indeed the spirit in which this legislation is brought forward.

The hon. member referred to the war clause under section 38 of the Insurance Act. The hon. member will recall that earlier this session he asked me a question about it and I replied that we were not entirely satisfied in that connection and that we were looking into the matter. That is so. We are very conscious of the importance of that issue. I shall be happy to keep the hon. member informed of what progress we are making here.

The hon. member also referred to the importance of not restricting the activities, let us say the entrepreneurial activities of banks and not discouraging that type of enterprise. I fully agree with him. I think as the banking system has evolved over the years, it has managed to maintain a remarkable spirit of enterprise although it has had to set itself very important standards of conduct by virtue of the very nature of its business. He referred to the very important role which executives played in banking. I think that is correct. I think what he was saying is that we are looking very closely now at the position of the shareholder and the role he plays and that we must not lose sight of the very big influence which the banking executive plays in this important field of activity. This is perfectly correct. We try to keep a view of the whole industry. The hon. member referred to the gyro system. I can simply say that that matter, which is a very technical one, is still being carefully investigated by a highly qualified committee. We have not got a final view from they yet, but they have I think just about reached finality, and I look forward to seeing whatever recommendations they put forward. Perhaps we might find an early opportunity during the next session to discuss this more fully, because this is certainly a modem development. The practical possibilities and the possible advantages for South Africa are the issues being looked at carefully, and I certainly hope to be able to report on that very soon.

In regard to credit cards, I think the hon. member raised a very important matter. There is no doubt that there is a proliferation of these credit cards and I think it will get worse. I think the hon. member’s point was that credit cards should all fall under the control of the office of the Registrar. I should like to look a little further into the possibilities. The hon. member will appreciate that we are keeping a close watch on the way the credit card systems are being operated, but we are prepared to look more fully into the possibility of pulling into the system certain pieces of paper which today are perhaps more in the nature of credit cards than is generally understood. I will make further inquiry into this matter.

Then there is the credit ceiling. The hon. member will remember that when the Reserve Bank introduced the credit ceiling earlier, it was stressed that it was purely a temporary measure. It was, in fact, a purely temporary measure, and we feel that it is very important under the conditions of inflation prevailing and the effect it has on the balance of payments and so on, that we should have this strong control over credit for a little while longer. I think there should be this effective control under present conditions, but, as I said, it is certainly a temporary measure and we would not wish to continue with it longer than we deem essential. But the view of the monetary authorities at the moment is that it is necessary for this measure to continue for a little while longer. We must bring the inflation rate under more effective control; we have to bring the inflation rate down, and therefore I think it is important that we should not allow a situation to develop where what is essentially cost inflation can move into demand inflation, and this is of course a safeguard in that respect. This is, I think, as far as I can go now. We shall try to do away with it as soon as we can.

In regard to pension funds, the hon. member raised the question of the problems that inflation causes. That is so. It is a very important problem. He asked whether Government bonds could not be devised specifically for the investment of pension funds’ moneys, perhaps based on the principle of indexation. I can say that up to now we have not really in consultation with the pension funds found or devised an effective device. But the matter is constantly under consideration and it is discussed from time to time with the pension funds. All I can say is that we are as conscious of the problems that the pension funds have as the pension funds themselves are, because they see it every day, and we will have to continue looking at the possibilities of solving that problem. I will bear that in mind. The hon. member referred to the possibility of an employee who might have 10 years’ service when he leaves not only drawing his own contributions but also the employer’s contributions. This is of course a matter very much, I think for the pension funds. Up to now they have felt that it would impose a rather substantial burden on their financial position. As I-say, they already have these problems. Costs are rising for them, as for everybody else. However, we also continually discuss those issues. Who knows, if there is a financial improvement there, this sort of thing might be possible. I would not, however, like to express a firm view on that at the moment.

The hon. member also referred to the possibility of a member’s transfer from one fund to another if he left the service of one organization and went to work for another. Again that is very much a question in respect of which the Government would be led by the pension fund industry, if I may put it that way. It is really a question of the financial implications of this sort of thing. In our discussions with them, from time to time, I shall specifically have those points raised.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to NCDs and the substantial part they play in the activities of certain banks. I think, if I understood him correctly, that he asked whether they should play such an important part in some banks.

In relation to a high percentage of the total liabilities.

The position there again is such that we would not, of course, like to intervene directly if banks feel they can derive advantages within the purview of the legislation as a whole and if they think that set-up is advantageous. We would not easily like to prohibit this. I think I have nevertheless

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a Bill to amend the Electoral Consolidation Act in order to provide for the voting of persons who will find themselves in independent States after such States gain their independence. Clause 1 deals with various definitions and amends those definitions in order to provide for voters to exercise their vote in those independent States.

I am perturbed by two of the provisions which are contained in the new definitions. The first one is the definition of “magistrate”. As the Act stands at the moment and as it will continue to apply within the Republic, “magistrate” also means an additional magistrate, an assistant magistrate, an acting magistrate, a Bantu Affairs Commissioner or a special justice of the peace who is an officer in the Public Service. Throughout the Act certain duties are required to be done by magistrates as opposed to persons holding other lower qualifications. In terms of the amendments which the hon. the Minister wants to bring about by means of the Bill, we find that in the case of an independent State “magistrate” shall mean a judicial officer of such an independent State. I can accept that “judicial officer” will be one of the categories mentioned under the definition of “magistrate” as it applies within the Republic. However, the hon. the Minister seeks to add “or any officer acting on the instructions and under the control of such a judicial officer”. This, to my mind, implies that any officer, any person employed by the Public Service of the independent State as long as he acts under the control of a judicial officer, will be permitted to carry out the duties in the independent State which are reserved only for a magistrate within the Republic. Only a magistrate, or a person with the qualifications of a magistrate, is allowed to perform those particular duties in the Republic, but somebody with—shall I say—lesser standing and perhaps of lower qualifications will be allowed to carry out those duties in an independent State.

The situation, I believe, is further confused if we look at the definition of “judicial officer” in the principal Act—

In other words, when an officer acts on the instructions and under the control of such a judicial officer, I hope the hon. the Minister implies such a judicial officer being only a magistrate and not in fact a justice of the peace or a commissioner of oaths.

When we look at the provision amending the definition of ‘ ‘presiding officer for votes of special voters” we find that the extension introduced by the hon. the Minister is that a presiding officer for votes of special voters shall “in relation to a special voter having his home in an independent State, include a judicial officer or an officer referred to in section 42(3)”. Here again we get the term “judicial officer” being introduced for votes of special voters—not absent voters. I know that the hon. the Minister knows the difference between an absent voter and a special voter and therefore I do not have to go into that now.

If we look at clause 10 we find again, where we are dealing with applications to vote as absent voters—in other words, to vote as special voters—that the Government of the Republic will enter into an agreement with the independent State concerned so that a judicial officer or any officer acting on the instructions and under the control of such a judicial officer shall perform the duties of a presiding officer for votes of special voters.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us if it is really his intention to allow this extension to an independent State in order to allow a person holding a rank below that of a magistrate or an assistant magistrate to perform the duties which in the Republic he reserves solely for a person of the rank of magistrate.

Mr. Chairman, I have a very clear understanding of the matter which has been raised. The idea is that we make provision for circumstances about which we are not 100% sure at the moment as far as the Transkei is concerned. One does not know exactly how many people there will be who will be able to cope with the task fully, but because we must be practical, we shall have to issue the instruction that votes may be cast in the presence of persons who are acting on the instructions of the person who is fully equipped for the task in terms of the Act. Practice will have to show us exactly what we are to do. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall keep an eye on the matter and that we shall not allow standards to drop. We do not want to run any risk in this regard. The Act is being amended solely for the purpose of allowing us the necessary scope for applying the system even in the absence of the right people. I want to assure him that we shall keep an eye on the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any need for too lengthy a debate on this clause. Most of the points that are raised by this clause were discussed in fair detail by all sides of the House during the Second Reading yesterday afternoon. I shall therefore be brief.

The effect of this clause is to prevent South African citizens who are resident in the Transkei or, for that matter, in any independent homeland, from voting or being registered as voters in South Africa in the event of any such citizens being convicted of contravening certain laws in the independent state concerned. As far as I am aware there is in fact no international precedent for a particular law such as this. The hon. the Minister was unable yesterday to quote any single precedent and I very much doubt whether he is in fact able to quote a precedent of this sort today. This clause really embodies a unique new concept, viz. that if a South African citizen contravenes a particular law of a foreign country, not only is he punished in that country but he will in fact also be penalized in South Africa. Whether the laws concerned are existing laws carried over into the new state or whether they are laws as yet unthought of and to be passed in those states in years to come, the principle, as far as I see it, remains unaltered. In other words, a double punishment is meted out. This is seriously in conflict with a very basic rule in respect of law as I see it, viz. that no person shall be tried, convicted or punished twice for the same offence.

That is absolute nonsense.

He can be punished twice. He will be penalized in the homeland state and he will again be penalized in South Africa for contravening a law which may not even apply in South Africa.

I do not intend repeating all the arguments that have been dealt with, some of which, indeed, were even evaded yesterday during the Second Reading debate. However, there are just one or two points I should like to mention. The first is in regard to the severity of the offence and particularly the severity of the sentence. In the proposed new section 6(1)(a)(iv) reference is made to an offence committed by a person under any law “in respect of which he has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine”. Similarly, in the provision dealing with the question of liquor and rehabilitation we read “… in respect of which he has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine or ordered to be detained under… ” In all honesty, I want to point out that different countries do have different legal systems and, in fact, even have different values and a different insight into offences and the application of laws. In Lagos, for instance, and in a few North African states a person who is convicted of being a thief may have his hands amputated. In South Africa the very same offence might lead to a fine of, say, between R20 and R50. In Mozambique under Portuguese rule when there was a stable form of law, if a person was caught driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, he was placed in prison.

Very severe sentences were brought to bear on such people. I think the same applies in Scandanavia. In South Africa, however, only a fine would be involved. In addition, although the assessment and the definition of the offence may be the same, a different interpretation and even different standards may apply. Let us take the case of a person who is considered to be under the influence of alcohol. The blood-count for the purposes of prosecution is different in different countries. It was 0,15 in South Africa until a year or two ago. It is now 0,08 in South Africa. In another country it may be 0,05. What I am trying to say is that different standards sometimes apply to the very same concept and the very same laws. Legal systems develop differently over the years in different countries. The Cabinet in one country, for instance, may take a far more serious view of a particular offence than a Cabinet in another country. In an independent homeland State in years to come persons may find themselves imprisoned, without the option of a fine, for several of the offences which in South Africa might draw only a fine or a caution and a discharge. That is not to say—and I honestly do not mean it this way—that one system is better or worse than another, or that one system has a higher or a lower standard than another. What I am saying is that the systems are in fact different, and I believe that rights in our country should be linked to the laws of our country as interpreted and applied in our country according to the standards of South African law. During the Second Reading debate it was said that in any event a check could be kept on this because, in terms of the measure which was passed earlier this year, appeals could be heard in the South African courts. Therefore, if a person felt aggrieved he could bring the matter before the South African courts. The situation is that until a few years ago, appeals against convictions and in connection with legal disputes could be heard in South African courts for Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and even Rhodesia. The situation is, however, that even if these appeals were heard, we did not extend this sort of provision that if somebody was convicted in Lesotho, Swaziland or Botswana, he would be deprived of his voting rights in South Africa. It was not extended in those cases, as far as I know, and I do not believe that it should be now. So, to be consistent, I believe that the same attitude should be adopted in this law. I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 24 and 25, to omit “or in an independent State”;
2. (2) on page 5, to omit all the words after “1967)” in line 32 up to and including “terrorism” in line 36;
3. (3) on page 5, in lines 44 and 45, to omit “or in an independent State”;
4. (4) on page 5, to omit all the words after “1971)” in line 53 up to and including “liquor” in line 57;
5. (5) on page 7, to omit all the words after “342” in line 11 up to and including “school” in line 14.

Mr. Chairman, I should like at this stage to deal with one issue which was raised by the hon. member for Sandton, and to make the position of this side of the House perfectly clear. The hon. member for Sandton drew a picture of the grave dangers which would face South African citizens if they were to be subjected to trial, in the limited field which is relevant to this electoral legislation, by the courts of justice in an independent State. We seem to lose sight of the fact that such independent States have been a part of our Republic, and that this Parliament has seen fit to give to them powers of government in the administration of their affairs because we believe that they have the capacity and the outlook of life which we accept as sufficient for them to govern a part of what has been South Africa. I want to say immediately that we on this side of the House disassociate ourselves from any suggestion that by passing this Bill we are going to make South Africans who are in the Transkei subject to some form of justice that chops off hands for theft or other things which have been suggested by the hon. member for Sandton. I believe that the suggestion which he has made is one of the most derogatory remarks that I have ever heard made about our South African Black citizens. [Interjections.] Those people are today citizens of the Republic of South Africa. In respect of those citizens, we are prepared to get rid of discrimination on the grounds of colour. And now we are asked to say that we cannot, in this particular context, trust that the administration of justice in an independent homeland, in this case the Transkei, will be done in a manner that would be acceptable to us. I want to say that we entirely dissociate ourselves from that attitude towards these people of the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the hon. member for Green Point can argue this matter neither in terms of precedents nor in terms of principle. My colleague, the hon. member for Sandton, has argued the whole issue on principle. If we want to argue the matter in terms of precedent, then I am afraid the argument the hon. member for Green Point has just presented is a very spurious one. Obviously most of the colonial countries that got their independence were members of their colonial mother countries and enjoyed the same systems of law in the mother countries. The example mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton developed subsequent to independence and indicated just what happened in those particular cases, without expressing any judgment on the ability or quality of the people there who construct their own legal systems. We might not agree with it, but that does not mean that we are saying in this particular instance it is bad or good. We are simply indicating as a matter of principle that there is a possibility that in other countries there might be different concepts of what constitutes misconduct under the law that we are now putting into this statute, that they might have different interpretations, and therefore we should maintain the discretionary freedom to determine whether, in fact, this conduct in terms of the interpretation of another court in another country constitutes such a crime that we in South Africa would deprive a person of his voting rights. That is all we are arguing about. I think it is mischievous and a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of the hon. member for Green Point to try to use it in this way.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Can the hon. member for Rondebosch refer to the arguments of the hon. member for Green Point as a deliberate misinterpretation?

Order! Is that what the hon. member said?

Yes, Sir, that is what I said.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberate misinterpretation”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them. The hon. member for Green Point’s statement was not a deliberate misinterpretation, but a misconstruction of the intentions of the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the argument of the hon. member for Rondebosch. I believe that all that has happened here this morning is that the hon. member for Sandton repeated what he said yesterday.

I did not.

I believe this is a reflection on the ability of the self-governing territories in the Republic to administer their own affairs, and in particular, in the circumstances of today’s debate, a reflection on the ability of the Transkei to carry out the ordinary tenets of justice which we have inculcated into them and which we have trained them to apply. The hon. member for Rondebosch made it worse when he said that we had taught them the tenets and the standards of justice which there are today. However, the hon. member for Sandton still says he is worried that someone may have his hands cut off and that he will not be able to make his cross.

I think we must also deal with the merits of …

That is untrue.

…the amendments moved by the hon. member. The hon. member says there is no precedent for this. He is quite right.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sandton entitled to say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has made a statement which is untrue and that he knows it?

Order! Did the hon. member say it?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, how … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the words. The hon. member is, however, still telling an untruth. [Interjections.].

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

I withdraw the words unconditionally, Sir. However, the hon. member is still telling an untruth.

Order! The hon. member is trying to evade my ruling. The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the words unconditionally.

As I said, the hon. member for Sandton is quite correct. There is no precedent for what we are doing here today. What we are doing here today is to make provision for voters in the Republic of South Africa, qualified voters, to exercise that vote outside the Republic, notwithstanding the fact that they are domiciled or permanently resident outside the Republic. As regards the law at the moment, if a South African citizen leaves the Republic permanently, he loses the right to vote. What we are being asked to do is to provide that those people who find themselves—through no fault of their own, but through actions of the Government—as South African citizens with the right to vote, in an independent State, shall have the right to continue to exercise their vote. Within the Republic we have certain laws and if a person is convicted of murder, of sedition, of an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act, of an offence under the Terrorism Act, of certain offences under the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, or is committed under the Mental Health Act, or if he is committed to a reform school, he shall lose the right to vote. That is the position in the Republic today. I believe it is only fair and logical that those provisions should also be applied to the independent homelands, when they become independent states, in so far as qualified South African voters are concerned. They will have the right to exercise a vote within the Republic, although resident in an independent State. I believe this is a perfectly logical step and they should be allowed to do so.

I also have full confidence in the judicial system which will be established in the Transkei after independence and that they will administer our laws in exactly the same way as we do it. The point which the hon. member for Sandton has missed completely is the fact that it is not their laws which will apply. As from the date of independence our laws will continue to apply in the Transkei, for instance. Our Suppression of Communism Act, our Terrorism Act, our Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act and our Mental Health Act will be applied there and will be administered by them. I make this statement with one reservation, namely that raised by the hon. member for Green Point yesterday, that if and when the independent State repeals our laws as they are applied and then applies its own laws in this regard, the time will then come that we will have to take the provisions of this clause into review. We shall have to reconsider our attitude towards the application of these particular provisions. I hope the hon. the Minister took cognizance of this point yesterday and that he will take cognizance of it now.

Yesterday the hon. member for Sandton raised the question which appears in subsection (b), which reads—

He referred particularly to the provision in lines 55, 56 and 57, which has as its objective the combating of the abuse of dependence-producing drugs and alcoholic liquor. He claims that this introduction of the term “and alcoholic liquor” was a new addition, and that the abuse of alcoholic liquor on the Transkei, for instance, would result in a person losing his right to vote. I would, respectfully, refer the hon. member to section 30 of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, read with section 29(1)(a), which provides that a person can be committed to a rehabilitation centre if he is dependent on alcoholic liquor or dependence-producing drugs. In other words, I do not believe that there is an extension here at all, and it is with regret that I have to tell the hon. member for Sandton that we in these benches cannot support the amendments which he has moved.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is perhaps necessary for me to take up a standpoint immediately with respect to this amendment, then the argument on the other side will perhaps come to an end. I therefore want to reject the amendment immediately, and I do so because I have good reasons for it. I have never yet heard such a poor argument as the one of the hon. member for Sandton with respect to double penalties. If this is valid, then precisely the same argument is applicable to South Africa at the moment, because if a person contravenes one of those laws in South Africa at the moment, he is punished by the court and subsequently his name is also removed from the voters’ roll. This therefore applies in South Africa at the moment. This Parliament made it effective. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Sandton has put his foot in it once again, just as he did last night.

The second argument was raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch when he tried to save the situation by saying that he conceded that all the colonial powers originally gave independence to these people and that they all began with a legal system which they inherited from the colonial powers. He went on to say that over the years, the position has got out of hand to such an extent that people’s hands may even be amputated. However, the position is very clear: at the moment, in accordance with the Bill at present being piloted through Parliament, the Transkei is taking over all the existing laws in their present form. It has also been provided that their highest judicial authority is an ultimate appeal to the Republic’s Appeal Court at Bloemfontein. In other words, the legal system of the Republic is being transferred to them as is. The Roman Dutch legal system, which forms the basis of our legal system, is their system at present. During yesterday’s debate it was said that if they were to pass unrealistic legislation not based on sound legal principles, this Parliament would be free at any time to amend this provision. However, I am not prepared to say in anticipation that the Transkei is not able to run a sound legal system, but such a statement is being made by the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Rondebosch. They are saying in anticipation that the Transkei is not capable of anything of this kind. They therefore distrust the Transkei in anticipation and they request that we should even now detach our laws from the Transkei.

Those words were not used at any stage.

I said that the words were not used at any stage, but the implication is very clear that the Transkei is not trusted.

That is a real verkrampte onslaught!

My argument is that here, in public and when they hold discussions with the Blacks as well, that party make a great fuss about wanting to co-operate with the Blacks and grant them equal rights. They also maintain that they will allow the Blacks into this Parliament and that it will be possible for the Blacks to be included on the common voters’ roll. Their point of departure, which has already been stated in public, is that a Black man may become Prime Minister in South Africa. However, this is a sham standpoint which is being adopted for outside consumption, because here, where it matters, they adopt the standpoint that the people will be inferior and that they cannot therefore be trusted. This argument is an interesting one because the issue here is one of specific matters and not merely about any limitations. It concerns specific aspects like murder, communism, high treason, terrorism and drug addiction. These are things which, in our country, are considered in a very serious light. Therefore we want to have equal treatment with respect to those people who live in the Transkei. We adopt the standpoint that the Transkeian Government is a responsible government and will also consider these things in a serious light and that they will implement, and continue to implement, our legislation concerning these matters, and do so in such a way as to make it clear that they consider them in a serious light. When the courts of that country find a person guilty of some serious offence, we believe that we must have sufficient respect for those courts to implement their findings immediately so that, as is the case in South Africa, the person concerned may be removed from the voters’ roll. This is the point of departure of the government and we stand by it. If hon. members tell me that there is no similar example elsewhere in the world, I tell them that a similar situation does not prevail elsewhere in the world. Why should our country always imitate other people? South Africa is often able to take the lead and this is what we are doing in this case. I think that there are several countries in the world that could profit by looking at what we are doing here. We are not at all behind. On the contrary. We are ahead in many spheres. Hon. members may just as well take a look around in the outside world. Therefore, in spite of all the other arguments raised, I cannot accept the amendment. I hope the hon. member has enough intelligence to withdraw his amendment, because in fact this is all that could save his party under these circumstances.

Order! At this stage I must say that I am not prepared to allow a repetition of the Second Reading debate. I am prepared to allow the hon. member for Sandton to reply briefly to the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister if he wishes to do so. However, I am not going to allow any other member to repeat the arguments that have been advanced during the course of this debate and during the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the previous speakers, but I want to raise a new aspect which has not been emphasized and I think it is important that it should be emphasized. In the reasons advanced for these amendments it was explained that in some countries a man may have his hands cut off for theft. What has not been emphasized is that there are four things which can lead up to losing one’s vote: treason, murder, conviction of an offence of communism or terrorism, and drug abuse.

That has been said a hundred times.

It has not been said a hundred times. Neither of the PRP speakers mentioned these offences. They referred to other offences. They referred to the principle of imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol, but avoided the nature of the offence. Treason remains treason whether you commit it in Timbuctoo, in the Transkei or in South Africa. Treason and murder remain treason and murder; most serious crimes against the State.

Order! The hon. member has made his point. Consequently he must not continue along those lines.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that one can be a communist or a drug addict as long as one does it across the border. Then one can be a communist, one can be a trained terrorist, provided one does it across the border. Then one must not lose your vote. If, however, one is a communist or terrorist in South Africa one loses the vote, but one is free to murder, to commit treason and to be a communist across the border.

Order! The hon. member is going too far. That is a point he can raise under the Third Reading.

I think I have made my point and I hope it will be noted by those who look on the “holier than thou” party as being the party of all morality.

On amendment (1),

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert and Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment, with amendment (2) dropped.

Amendment (3) negatived and amendment (4) dropped (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (5) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert and Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 4:

This clause refers to section 13(4A) of the Act, a new subsection introduced by clause 5 to deal with the registration of voters. Section 9 of the Act provides that application for registration must be made to the electoral officer for the area in which the voter resides or carries on business, as the case may be. It is now to be amended by allowing applicants who live in an independent homeland to deliver the application to the nearest magistrate’s office in the Republic. In the Second Reading I objected to the new proposal for the Whites living in the Transkei, contending that they should be registered in one area or office because of their community of interest. In section 43 of the Constitution of the Republic Act it is laid down that a delimitation commission shall give due consideration to certain factors. The first is community or diversity of interests. I pointed out that the voters in the Transkei would be dispersed over several constituencies and that this was against their interest. The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, referred to Cofimvaba and said that the voters in Cofimvaba would be registered in Queenstown because the Queenstown office is the nearest office, as the crow flies, to Cofimvaba. That, of course, is incorrect. The voters in Cofimvaba will be registered at Cathcart because Cathcart is 27 km closer, as the crow flies, than Queenstown is. By road Queenstown is closer, but not as the crow flies. I see the hon. the Minister shaking his head. I have just consulted the map, however, and if the hon. the Minister checks up on the map he will find that, as the crow flies, Cathcart is nearest to Cofimvaba. The voters of Tsomo, which is alongside Cofimvaba, will be registered at Stutterheim, while the voters of Cala, on the other side of Cofimvaba, will be registered in the Aliwal North constituency. The voters of Lady Frere which also adjoins would be registered in the Queenstown constituency.

If we go to the other area, Umzimkulu is nearest to Ixopo, but Flagstaff, Lusikisiki, Port St. Johns and Bizana are nearest, as the crow flies, to Harding. Umtata and the surrounding areas are nearest to Maclear, so voters there will be registered in Aliwal North whereas voters in Butterworth and areas lower down are nearest to Komga, so they will remain in the East Griqualand constituency as it is now. As I have said, the Transkei will be cut up into about four or five different constituencies, and I submit that that is not fair to those voters. They have a community interest and should be all concentrated in one constituency.

Unfortunately, my amendment to this clause on the Order Paper becomes meaningless unless my amendment to clause 5 is accepted. However, I shall not be able to move the amendment to clause 5 because, during the Second Reading debate, the House rejected our reasoned amendment which did, in fact, deal with this position. Since my amendment on the Order Paper will therefore be meaningless I shall not move it. I do ask the hon. the Minister, however, to reconsider this whole matter. He must please look at the map and see what will happen to that constituency and I request him, once he has done that, to reconsider the matter and introduce an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, we considered the matter before we drafted this Bill. It concerns one principle only. How it is to be implemented is merely a matter of the most practical method. The principle at issue here is whether the Transkei is or is not to be regarded as a unit for the purposes of delimitation in the future. That is the key decision to be taken. The hon. member and his party are in favour of the Transkei being regarded as a unit. However, our point of departure is that at the next delimitation—we must bear in mind that until the next delimitation the position remains as it is at present; it is not being affected—we shall have the position that the Transkei will then probably be independent, and when it is independent, there will no longer be borders making it part of the Republic of South Africa. In other words, as far as we are concerned that territory is then foreign territory and the people living within those borders cannot then be kept together as a group and placed in one constituency. How are we to do this? We must adopt a practical approach to the matter. We should have to take 5 000 or 6 000 Transkeian voters and add 2 000 voters from somewhere in South Africa to obtain the full quota. We should then have to give the constituency a name—Konga or something of the kind. That is what it would amount to in practice. Then the people in the north of the Transkei would probably be much further away from this bottommost part than from Aliwal North or Harding. The community of interests is that they will all be living in the Transkei. However, the argument is that they must remain a unit because they have other interests which will extend across the borders. Our point of departure is therefore one of principle.

We do not see our way clear to continue to regard the Transkei as a unitary bloc after independence and after the next delimitation, as if nothing had happened with regard to the Transkei. In other words, for delimitation purposes we are not prepared to regard the Transkei after independence as we regard it now. Naturally we must give the voters in the Transkei the franchise. We have undertaken to do so, and we have just confirmed it again here. However, we think the most practical method is to register the people in the nearest bordering constituency. The place where the application for registration is submitted is the nearest magistrate’s office in the Republic of South Africa, but whether it is Cathcart or Queenstown makes no difference to me.

But those two places are in different constituencies.

Yes, that is true, but it makes no difference where the application is submitted, because the chief electoral officer in Pretoria will eventually decide what constituency the person who submitted the application will fall under. The determining factor is the magistrate’s office nearest to the person who has applied. It is not true, therefore, that because a person decides to apply at Cathcart, he will be registered in the constituency in which Cathcart is situated. It is provided that he must apply at the nearest magistrate’s office but that does not mean that he will automatically be placed on the voters’ roll of the constituency in which that magistrate’s office is situated. Furthermore, it may happen that after delimitation, different borders may be determined for constituencies. It is a pragmatic solution that he should register at the nearest magistrate’s office. We then know what magistrate’s office is nearest to him. At the time of delimitation the delimitation commission will be able to take into account the fact that a certain number of voters in the Transkei have registered themselves in magisterial districts falling under the constituency of Queenstown, whereas others will have registered in the magistrate’s offices of other constituencies. When delimitation takes place, the number of voters in the Transkei who have registered themselves in the various magisterial districts will be taken into account in determining the quota.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the number of voters in the Transkei will only be taken into account in regard to the quota relating to the number of voters per constituency, and not as far as the surface area of constituencies is concerned?

The numbers are taken into account for the quota, but the surface area of the Transkeian territory will not be taken into account, because the Transkei will no longer be South African territory.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I should like to give a ruling in this connection. We are dealing with a matter on which a final decision has already been taken at the Second Reading. Consequently I have allowed one hon. member of the Official Opposition to state his case. I am also prepared to allow one hon. member of the PRP to state his standpoint, according to practice. Consequently an hon. member of the Official Opposition can only be permitted to discuss the details of the clause, but not the principle thereof.

Mr. Chairman, in those circumstances I should merely like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Could the hon. the Minister tell me whether, in estimating the distance as the crow flies, the distance will be taken from the magistracy of the district in which the applicant lives? For instance, if he is a trader in Tsomo bordering on Butterworth will the distance be taken from his trading station or from the centre of the magistracy of the area?

The distance will be taken from his stand or from the place where he normally resides.

In other words, people living within the same districts in the Transkei may be registered in different constituencies? I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that Tsomo, Cofimvaba, Cala and certain other places may therefore be registered in different magistracies because some will be registered in the Stutterheim magistracy which falls within the Griqualand East constituency while others may be registered in the Queenstown constituency. I just want to get it quite clear that the distance will be estimated from the place where the trader resides and not from his town.

The position is as set out by the hon. member.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I explained the amendment during the amendment during the Second Reading debate and I do not believe it is necessary to repeat what I said then. All that is envisaged by way of the amendment is to introduce the concept “as the crow flies”.

Mr. Chairman, clause 5 deals with several issues, and by way of our amendment to the Second Reading we placed before the House our attitude to different aspects of this clause. We recorded our objection to certain of its provisions. The issues dealt with under this clause are, firstly, the retention of franchise rights in the Republic by those South African citizens who find themselves in a homeland at the time of its becoming independent. They have those franchise rights whether they are registered or not. If they are qualified to register, they can still do so. The second issue is the question of the retention of franchise rights in South Africa by South African citizens who are qualified to vote and who leave South Africa to take up residence in the independent homeland after it has become independent. The third issue concerns the method of dealing with these persons in the interim period up to the date of the next delimitation and also the method of the delimitation and the effect that delimitation will have on them afterwards. Or reasoned amendment at the Second Reading, I think, made our attitude quite clear. We strongly support the retention of the right to vote in respect of the South African citizens who are entitled to vote and who are in the Transkei or any other independent homeland at the time of its becoming independent.

However, we are opposed to the second aspect, as we made clear in our amendment yesterday. I merely want to repeat our argument for the record under this clause. We are opposed to the extension of the principle which is applied by the Government in respect of the urban Bantu, viz. that where your residence is is no longer a matter of concern as regards your voting rights in the country of which you hold citizenship. Just as the urban Bantu in, say, Cape Town or Johannesburg will be required to vote in the independent State to which he is attached by law, so the franchise rights of the White voter, who takes up residence in a foreign State after it has become independent, remain attached to the Republic in terms of this Bill. We are obviously opposed to that.

The hon. member for Griqualand East has already dealt with the question of administration in this connection and therefore I do not need to repeat that issue. Let me just say that I do hope that, as regards the delimitation aspect, the Minister will take cognizance of the need to take into consideration the community of interest of these people. This is indeed a factor provided for in our constitution. However, that is a question that will arise only when it comes to the next delimitation. Our attitude, as we expressed it in the Second Reading, remains unchanged. The amendments which appear on the Order Paper indicate our approach to these matters. However, the House has already expressed its views on those matters and, therefore, for obvious reasons I shall not move the amendments standing in my name. Nevertheless, I hope the hon. the Minister will give full consideration to the possible introduction of further amendments—not specifically those I have placed on the Order Paper, but amendments of a similar nature.

As regards the clause now before us, I want to say that we regard the retention of rights of the persons in the Transkei at its date of independence as the most important aspect of this clause. We believe that this right should be retained in respect of those persons, and we shall therefore not oppose the clause at this stage.

As far as the hon. the Minister’s amendment is concerned, we want to indicate that we are still committed to the views we expressed at the Second Reading, and will therefore oppose that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate that I agree with the principle of this clause, which in effect grants voting rights to persons who find themselves in their homeland at the time of its becoming independent. However, I share with the hon. member for Green Point the view that people who of their own free will and volition emigrate to the homeland after it has become independent should in fact enjoy no special preference other than is enjoyed by any South African citizen in regard to any other State and particularly in regard to States in Africa.

Why particularly in Africa?

Well, because the rest of Africa is right next door. Let me give an example. Public servants are protected in whatever country they serve South Africa. However, many ordinary citizens serve South Africa very loyally and very properly in their private capacity or for their companies in States outside South Africa. This concerns Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Rhodesia or any other State. These people are not accorded any special preferences in regard to their voting rights. I feel that since the Transkei is in due course to become an independent State, the situation should not be any different from the position in respect of any other African State. That is why I used that example. I think the creation of these special circumstances in fact destroys the consistency of the treatment which is afforded to South African citizens who serve South Africa, in a private capacity perhaps, in other countries in Africa and abroad. I feel that the natural consequence of accepting the wording proposed by the hon. the Minister is that we should look at the rights of voters who are in other African States, such as the ones I have mentioned, and see whether the rights of voting which are to be granted by this Parliament to voters in the Transkei should not also be granted to voters who go out of South Africa on contract, on business or for any other purpose, and who retain their South African citizenship. I believe that they too should have those rights.

Order! Before giving the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reply, I wish to remind hon. members of my previous ruling to the effect that I shall not allow any further discussion of the principle, but only of the details of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anything new I can add to the arguments I advanced yesterday during the Second Reading concerning the principle of this matter. Perhaps I could just summarize briefly by saying that we believe that after independence, the Transkei will be sovereign and independent, just as any other state is sovereign and independent. There will be no restriction of any nature on its independence. However, we envisage for the future that the States which at present form part of South Africa and which will become independent in accordance with our policy, will be a community of states enjoying specially privileged positions mutually in respect of each other, which will differ from the relationship between South Africa and states which do not at present form part of the Republic of South Africa and which must therefore be dealt with in another way. This is our point of departure; this is our policy and we shall carry it out. Once again I want to refer briefly to the example I mentioned yesterday. In the old British Commonwealth, all the states enjoyed total sovereign independence. That very opposition party pointed out how strongly independent South Africa was as a member of the Commonwealth.

May I ask a question?

I am prepared to listen to a stupid question.

That is the sort of answer one can expect from that hon. Minister. In the past, the hon. the Minister has expressed himself on the subject of confederation. Is this what he means by a “confederation”?

Sir, I shall come to that shortly. As I have said, our point of departure is very clear. In the old British Commonwealth, its various members enjoyed total sovereign independence, but there were privileged relations between them and the mother country with regard to entry and departure, passports, visas, imports, exports, etc. In the present Republic of South Africa and its homeland states which are becoming independent, a similar relationship will exist. It will certainly not be on the basis of a commonwealth, but the same principle, viz. one of privilege with regard to the individual members and the mother country, will remain. For example, I refer to the Public Service Act which was amended yesterday to provide them with permanent appointments here and which does not apply to Malawi or Rhodesia. Then, too, there is the issue of entry and of movement, in regard to which there will be certain arrangements in terms of which this will be easier than in the case of foreign states. The franchise, too, we see in the same light. White South Africans who go to one of these homelands after independence or find themselves there will retain their franchise in South Africa. On a mutual basis, Blacks from that area who find themselves in South Africa will also retain their franchise in the homelands. This is the principle behind this.

The hon. member put a question to me concerning confederation. I just want to react to it.

Order! the hon. the Minister may not react to it. The question was out of order in any event.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with the clause which provides inter alia that the voters who find themselves resident in the independent homeland shall be registered in the division in which the magistrate’s office nearest to his home is situated. What exactly does this mean? It means that we are going to have a community of people, if we take the example of the Transkei …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines. The hon. member for Griqualand East and the hon. member for Green Point have already raised that point.

With respect, Sir, I have a new point I wish to make.

Well, the hon. member must then come to the new point immediately.

I accept your ruling. I am not debating the principle of the Bill. I am debating what this clause contains, what exactly it means and what it is going to mean to those voters who find themselves in this independent homeland. Am I permitted to do that, Sir?

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I should like to ask what this is going to mean to those people. It means that where at the moment you have a community and where then you will have a community which is a closed community and a community with certain intimate interests, their right to vote as a unit in terms of the Constitution Act is going to be removed as they will be divided amongst various constituencies. The effect of this, I submit, is going to be that they will not be heard as a community. Their whole voice will be dissipated in these various constituencies. I wonder if the decision of the hon. the Minister and the Government in this case has not been dictated by political consideration rather than by practical considerations, the interests of the persons concerned. It has been shown during the last three general elections that the Government has not even contested that seat because it knows that it cannot win it. In other words, as a seat it can be won by the Opposition. Now if 5 000 voters are going to be dispersed over five constituencies their voice will be lost. They will no longer have any voice whatsoever in this Parliament.

Order! I think the hon. member has made his point. I have in any case allowed him a tremendous amount of latitude.

Mr. Chairman, I take it that if at this stage we do not discuss anything other than the crow or the crow in flight we are likely to receive the bird from the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to the last point raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I can give him the assurance that there are no political motives of any kind. On the contrary. What does it matter whether we have 123 or 122 seats in this House? What does it matter? It makes no difference.

It makes a difference to us.

The argument remains that a party with a two-thirds majority is not concerned about a single seat. After all, we do not want to become a one-party state eventually. My point of view is that in our opinion, those people cannot be kept together in a bloc because we should then be accepting by implication that the Transkei was not independent, but still formed part of the Republic for the purposes of delimitation. That is why we cannot accept this.

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Proposed substitution agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, clause 8 of the Bill deals with deletions from the voters’ roll, whereas in terms of the Act as it is at the moment, a person who has left the Republic with the intention of not returning thereto, automatically has his name removed from the roll. In terms of clause 8 that provision will not apply to any person who has left the Republic with the intention of retaining a home in an independent State.

The question I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, is the question whether—from the date of removal to the independent State, up until the next delimitation—that particular individual is to remain in the particular constituency in which he was registered at the time of his removal. For instance: If a family of eight in my constituency were to take up residence in the Transkei, are they then to remain on the Green Point voters’ roll until the next delimitation, or can they avail themselves of re-registration on the basis of the nearest magistrate’s court? When the next delimitation is made, those persons will then be grouped together with those who are registered with the nearest magistrate’s court. I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head. Therefore I take it that I am correct when I say that they would remain there until they themselves apply for re-registration at the nearest magistrate’s court.

Not necessarily.

The hon. the Minister says that it is not necessarily so. The present position is that if voter A moves from constituency of Green Point to constituency of Pretoria Central, he must apply for a transfer to the new constituency. If a voter of the Green Point constituency goes to the Transkei, he will remain on the Green Point voters’ list, unless he avails himself of the opportunity of re-registering at the nearest magistrate’s court. The question which now arises is under what constituency he will fall before the next delimitation. For instance, if a voter is registered in Cathcart, does he then become a voter in the present delimitated East Griqualand constituency, or does he become a voter in the constituency in which the specific magistrate’s court is situated.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has stated this problem. I think it would be best if I were to deal with the problem as a whole. One possibility is that the voters register themselves when they arrive in the Transkei. If they do so—at the nearest polling district outside the Transkei—then they immediately and automatically become voters of the constituency under which that magisterial district falls. If these people do not register themselves there at all, then they could remain on the voter’s roll of Green Point in the normal way except for certain specific possibilities. The voters of Green Point, when departing from the Republic, will fill in a form at whichever border post through which they enter the Transkei, as proof that they are leaving the Republic permanently. If they envisage settling in the United Kingdom, for example, then their vote falls away entirely. However, if they want to settle in the Transkei, then this legislation at present being piloted through Parliament applies to them. It means that they will arrive in the Transkei and if they have not registered themselves, then we shall in any event be aware of the fact that they have left the Republic. We shall also know where they have settled and we can therefore send them the usual forms which they must then fill in and return to us in terms of section 30 of the Electoral Laws Act.

However, there is no obligation on them.

They may do so voluntarily, but because a voter has left his constituency and is permanently settled in a new place of residence, the Government can direct him to fill in a new form. Section 30bis of the Act authorizes this, and I can quote it to the hon. member.

But there is no penalty if they do not do so.

The voter can be directed to fill in the form. However, the fact remains that section 30bis(1) of the Electoral Consolidation Act provides that if a permanent change has occurred in regard to the residence with reference to which a voter has been registered in the constituency, any person may after the expiration of a period of two months since the change occurred, give written notice of the change in a prescribed manner to the electoral Officer appointed for the area in which such division is situated. Section 30bis(2) goes on to provide that on receipt of any notice referred to in subsection (1), the electoral officer shall direct the voter concerned to complete and lodge with him in a prescribed manner the form of application of registration as a voter within the specified period. The voter is therefore directed to fill in a new form and lodge it with the electoral officer.

If the voter does not fill in an application form?

If the voter does not fill in such a form, the penal provisions in the Electoral Act will apply. If there are no penal provisions, then there is nothing.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. the Minister has taken up this attitude in regard to this matter, because I believe that it is going to raise an issue which has, if I can use the expression, been ducked by the Government. That issue is that when a voter changes his address, there should be a compulsory obligation upon him to register his new address. That compulsion is not there.

Order! I must say that the hon. the member is going too far now.

Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to follow the reasoning of the hon. the Minister in this respect. Clause 8 of the Bill deals with section 18 of the Act. Section 18 provides that certain voters shall have their names removed from the list of voters. Included among those people who shall have their names removed from the list of voters, are those who leave the Republic with the intention of not returning thereto. In this amendment the hon. the Minister is saying to the electoral officer: You shall remove the names of all those people who leave the Republic without the intention of returning thereto, but you shall not remove from the roll the names of those who leave the Republic to go to an independent State with the intention of remaining there. If that is the case, how can the hon. the Minister, when the voter crosses the border, use another means to say to the voter that he must supply the card which is going to remove his name from the voters’ roll.

That is utter nonsense.

No, that is not nonsense at all. That is what is written here. An obligation is placed on the electoral officer not to remove the person’s name. That is where the argument of the hon. member for Green Point is correct. The voter from Green Point who goes to live in Umzimkulu, will remain on the voters’ roll in Green Point and the electoral officer is told he is not to remove that voters name from the Green Point roll. He is to leave it there. Let us take the case …

They will only be retained on the roll until the next general registration.

Or until they reregisters.

Until the next delimitation or until he re-registers. His name will remain there until the next delimitation when, if he does not re-register, his name will automatically be placed in the constituency in which is situated the magistrate’s office which is nearest to his place of residence. I would like to point out, however, that there is no compulsion upon him to re-register as those sections of the Act have never been applied by this Government. Let us deal with the situation in the interim. What happens when we have an election before the next general election? We can have a voter from Green Point who has moved to Umzimkulu and if the hon. the Minister has compelled him to re-register, that voter, whose residence is in Umzimkulu, which is within the boundaries of the present constituency of Griqualand East, will be compelled to register in the Ixopo magisterial district. Ixopo is in the South Coast constituency. So you are going to have people resident in Umzimkulu voting in two different constituencies. [Interjections.] It is not nonsense. People who are in Umzimkulu today will still continue to vote, before the next delimitation, in the Griqualand East constituency while those persons who move into Umzimkulu and who are compelled to reregister there will find themselves registered in the South Coast constituency. I believe the hon. the Minister must have a look and see what he is doing with this clause and think about it again.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

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, we opposed this Bill at the Second Reading by way of reasoned amendments and recorded our objections to it in the first place, because it allows South African citizens who take up permanent residence or domicile in an independent homeland after the independence of that homeland to register as voters in the Republic. This is contrary, we believe, to any other accepted practice in the rest of the world. We objected to it also because it alters the position of those people who are permanently resident in the Transkei at the moment and who are on the voters’ roll in the constituency of Griqualand East, in that it would dispose the effect of their votes because they would then be placed in different constituencies which would vary in number in terms of the proposition now that they would be registered in the nearest magistracy as the crow flies. We stress the point that these voters in the Transkei have a community of interests and that their interests are quite different from those of voters living outside the Transkei and that in the circumstances they should have been kept as one block to use their influence and their pressure where necessary, but unfortunately we lost on that in the Committee Stage. I would point out again that according to the proposals now, you can have the present voters registered in the Transkei being placed in about four or five different constituencies. The question has been raised by some hon. members as to whether those who are closer to Harding and Ixopo, as the crow flies, will be put into Natal constituencies, which is a different province from the Cape, while they have always been associated with the Cape. I take it now that when there are independent States, the provincial boundaries will no longer apply and these people will now find themselves registered in Natal and others in the Cape. We oppose this. We have tried to get our amendments accepted to provide that those who enter the Transkei after independence will not retain their citizenship rights and that those in the Transkei will be kept in one block. But in this Third Reading we have to take a different attitude. If we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, it will mean that we will be denying South African citizens now living in the Transkei and registered as voters, the right to vote after independence. That we do not wish to do. We wish them to retain their rights because they are in a foreign country not of their own accord but many of them because they cannot get out and will be compelled to stay in the area. Because of this factor, we wish these people to retain their political rights in the Republic and therefore we will not oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, two of the matters raised by the official Opposition were supported by us in the Second Reading. There is firstly, the question of people moving into the independent State after the independence of that State. Our feeling is—and I put it in the Committee Stage as well—that those people should not be accorded privileges which do not pertain to people serving South Africa in private capacities in other States of Africa. That point was lost.

The other point raised in opposition to this Bill was that it is our belief that it is incorrect to apportion, in such a manner, South African voters in the Transkei who register prior to the next delimitation but after independence. We felt that this would have the effect, in some circumstances, of crossing provincial boundaries, a principle we believe to be incorrect. We also stated that this could well affect the loading and the deloading of seats and that Parliament would be acting as an arbitrary mini-delimitation commission, a principle we also consider to be incorrect.

Our third point of opposition seems to have raised a certain amount of ire in this House. Our third point was that we believe that citizens of South Africa should be responsible to South Africa for any offences they may commit and that they are punishable for those offences if found guilty, but we also feel that the rights of South African citizens should not be subject to laws applied and interpreted in foreign countries. On that basis, too, we opposed this Bill at Second Reading and at the Committee Stage. Those points, however, were also lost in debate and in the vote after the debate.

Unlike the official Opposition, however, we believe that if one takes a stand in which one believes, one based on principle, one sticks to it. One does not, because one feels one has lost even a few major points, raised with quite some vehemence in the debate, I might add, suddenly change one’s viewpoint at Third Reading. Our view is that although this Bill provides for the rights of voters who find themselves inside the Transkei on the date of independence, certain wrong principles are being introduced and remain in the Bill, and those wrong principles are sufficient for us to say that we will be consistent in opposing the Third Reading of the Bill.

Are you consistent in your principles too, I wonder?

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in replying to the hon. member for Sandton. As has been indicated by the hon. member for Griqualand East, we have made it clear that there are various issues involved in this Bill. We have assessed the issue of paramount significance, however, and that is that one should ensure that there is no deprivation of existing rights. We have therefore indicated that we shall support this Third Reading. The hon. member for Sandton is now prepared to throw overboard the rights of the existing voters in the Transkei in case, in the future, certain South African citizens may take up residence or permanent domicile in the Transkei. I think, however, that we have made abundantly clear—in fact, so clear that I do not think I need to elaborate on it during this Third Reading debate—what issue is of greater importance. As far as rights of the vote in South Africa are concerned, we believe that there are certain conditions that should be retained and should continue to apply, and we believe that if a man is guilty of the offences set out in the Electoral Act, offences which deprive him of the right to vote in South Africa if he is within South Africa, if he is convicted in terms of laws to combat terrorism, communism and drug abuse—amongst others—and of course if he has been convicted of murder and treason, he should likewise lose his voting rights extended to him while he is in another country.

Finally, I want to emphasize that when we in this party talk about a federal concept for South Africa, we do so because we believe that we can rely upon and seek the support of the Black people who today are South African citizens and are a part of our South African nation. Sir, if it is the wish, as Parliament has already indicated in the Status of the Transkei Bill, that they should have exclusive control over a part of the ground of South Africa, it does not in any way shake our belief that they will carry out their responsibilities, which we would like them to carry out on a federal basis, in such a way that it will ultimately lead to a confederation in South Africa, as the hon. Minister has said.

Mr. Speaker, since we have reached the end of this debate, I should like to reply very briefly to the matters raised this afternoon. In the first place I want to refer to the standpoint of the hon. member for Griqualand East. He made an appeal once again with regard to the community of interests of these people. He said that they had common interests, and that we should retain them as such. I just want to put it to him for consideration that the community of interests of the people who will be in the Transkei after independence will be in respect of the Transkei. The franchise they exercise here has no influence on what happens in the Transkei. It concerns the situation in South Africa. In other words, the vote they cast in that regard cannot change their position in the Transkei in any way. To that I want to add that the Transkei as an independent State will have its own laws, its own members of Parliament, etc. The rights which those people retain as South African citizens, they will therefore exercise in South Africa, and in that connection they will be involved in the constituencies on their immediate borders. This is clear to me.

Secondly, if they want to exercise influence in this Parliament to bring about certain arrangements between us and the Transkei, they will be in a better position to do so under our system than under the system proposed by the hon. member, because they will then have a say in four or five constituencies. They will have four or five representatives of various parties who can put their case here in this Parliament. Under such circumstances they will even be able to submit petitions. [Interjections.] It is therefore very clear that our system will be far more beneficial to those voters than the system proposed by the hon. member. Furthermore, I want to confirm that as I read the legislation, I believe that some of those voters may be included in Natal constituencies at a subsequent delimitation. Those who are in the northern parts of the Transkei, whose nearest magistrate’s office is situated in Natal, could probably land up in a Natal constituency.

In what way will numbers of people in the Transkei be used to establish the provincial quota for delimitation?

Sir, surely it is clear as crystal that the people will be registered in the nearest magisterial district. The 5 000 White voters at present in the Transkei will, as a result of this legislation, eventually find themselves, after a subsequent delimitation, in five or six different magisterial districts where they will then be registered. Those who fall under Natal will be included in Natal and those who fall under the Cape will be included in the Cape. The quota will be established in this way. This Parliament in no way puts itself forward as a delimitation commission. I am now speaking entirely hypothetically, but say, for argument’s sake, there are a thousand votes in the north of the Transkei which will fall under Natal. At a subsequent delimitation those thousand votes will be included in the nearest magisterial district of Natal. Those thousand votes will be taken into calculation at a subsequent delimitation. It is as simple as that. To say now that this Parliament is playing at being a delimitation commission means that the hon. member does not understand the legislation.

The hon. member for Sandton once again repeated a standpoint which he stated earlier. I had thought he would have tried to get out of it in an easier way by simply remaining silent. However, he repeated the standpoint that they objected to the fact that if a person is guilty of a serious offence in the Transkei, according to the Transkeian laws, for example if he is found guilty there of high treason or murder or something of that nature, then that should disqualify him for the purpose of our voter’s roll. That was the hon. members point of departure.

This once again brings me to the standpoint that those hon. members, whichever weak arguments they may try to hide behind, have one of two things in mind in this connection. The one possibility is that they are contemptuous in advance of the Transkei’s legislative ability, and what this amounts to is that they will immediately amend and change reasonable laws in order to make them unacceptable to the voters in South Africa in this way. The other possibility is that they are not prepared to adopt a strong standpoint with regard to these offences or, in other words, that they do not feel so strongly about high treason, communism or the abuse of drugs. One of these two reasons must be behind the argument they advanced.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether there is not perhaps a third reason, namely that they only just managed to retain their deposit in a recent by-election in Griqualand East?

Yes, that may be a further reason. In any event they have not received much support in that constituency. That party is now proclaiming in public that they are in favour of giving the franchise to the Black people in this Parliament on a common voters’ roll. These, now, are the people who say that they are prepared to accept Black people as members of this Parliament. They are the people who say that they are prepared to recognize a Black majority government in South Africa. They say it openly. I have proof of this if anyone should question it. I refer hon. members to what Senator Bamford said in the Other Place on 11 May this year. I may not quote it here, but it appears in column 2177 of the Senate Hansard. To be specific, Senator Bamford confirmed that his party was in favour of a Black majority Government being able to come into power in South Africa. It is as well that we know this. It is as well, too, that the voters know this. Those hon. members are supposedly so prepared in public to afford so much support to the Blacks and to express so much confidence in them that they are prepared to entrust such powers to them, but when it comes to a Bill such as this, they register the strongest objection that the legislation of those people should be passed in such a way.

The issue of loading and deloading I have already dealt with. In conclusion I just want to refer to the concept “confederation” to which reference has been made. I do not use the concept “confederation” with regard to the final answer. Please, anything but that! There must be no mistake about this. The final concept which this party envisages has been expressed in various ways over the years. Dr. Verwoerd referred to something like a commonwealth. Our hon. Prime Minister refers to a power bloc. Indeed, some people refer to a confederation. We have not yet decided on a name which will describe the final position, but it is very clear that under our policy of independent homelands, a number of states will develop out of the Republic of South Africa. Each of those States will enjoy sovereign independence in its own right on both the political and the constitutional level. But in the field of economics and in a number of other fields, too, these States will be interdependent. Furthermore, there will be special relationships between us and them in specific spheres. For example, this legislation makes special provision with regard to the franchise of people. The Public Service Commission Act, again, provides for permanent posts in the Public Service. In this way various arrangements are being made. In other words, there will be a community of nations, as I would call it, which will develop out of the present Republic of South Africa, and which will eventually be able to move forward together and which will attempt under all circumstances to constitute an anti-communist bloc to ensure peaceful co-existence in this part of the world. This is the ultimate goal we are moving towards and this Bill is a step in the right direction.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

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

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill gives effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. I want to express my thanks to those hon. members who served on the committee for their work in this connection.

As hon. members know, the recommendations have already been agreed to by this hon. House and the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. As indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Bill gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions, whose report has already been accepted by this House. It is also interesting to note that the schedule containing the various recommendations is shorter than in the past. This is due mainly to the fact that many petitions are now not necessary as they can be dealt with administratively. We on this side of the House welcome developments which bring about improvements and obviate the necessity to present a petition to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we too support the Second Reading of the Bill which is before us.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Following on the Government’s decision to grant full independence to the Transkei and whereas it is envisaged that, by way of agreements between the respective Governments, to continue the services presently rendered by the Administration of Coloured Affairs to Coloured persons resident in the Transkei after independence, it is right and proper that those Coloureds should for the foreseeable future retain their right of participation in the highest Coloured representative body in the Republic for as long as they remain South African citizens, by having the right to be registered as voters and to vote for the Coloured Persons Representative Council of the Republic of South Africa.

Due to the provision in the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, i.e. that a person who is registered on the Coloured voters’ list must have been resident in a particular province of the Republic for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding nomination or election to the council, and the fact that the Transkei after independence will no longer form part of a province, a person remaining in the Transkei will no longer qualify for nomination or election as members of the council. Until such time as the Transkei is omitted by a re-division of electoral divisions—which must take place at the latest during May 1979—Coloureds resident in the Transkei will, however, still be entitled to register as voters and to vote in their present electoral division, namely Eastern Cape.

In the aforementioned Act the definition of “Coloured person” is tied to classification under the Population Registration Act, 1950, and since this Act will not be applicable in the Transkei after independence, the definition would have to be extended as reflected in clause 4 of the Bill: firstly, whereas its general functions and powers are at present restricted to the Republic, to enable the Coloured Persons Representative Council to render services to all and to use its funds outside the Republic and, secondly, to make it possible for Coloured persons residing in the Transkei to remain on and to be included in the voters’ list for the council.

With regard to this amplification, it is considered advisable to provide not only for the Transkei, but also for any other territory in the Republic which may later become independent.

The provisions of the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, are, with certain exceptions—provided for in section 9 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, Act, 1964—mutatis mutandis applicable to the registration of voters, the preparation of voters’ lists and any matter affecting the election of members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Following on the amendment of the Electoral Act to regulate the registration of and voting by any voter who resides in an independent State, it is necessary that the differing provisions of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, i.e. the exceptions mentioned previously, be adapted to the new set-up in order to bring the prescribed registration and voting procedures into line. This is being done in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, while clause 3 contains a correction of an obsolete term.

In further explanation I wish to add that section 13 of the Electoral Act, as amplified by clause 5 of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, 1976, is mutatis mutandis applicable to the registration of Coloured voters having their homes in an independent State. It amounts to this, that a Coloured person, as re-defined in clause 4 of this Bill, provided he is, in terms of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, entitled to be registered as a voter, may continue after a territory has become independent to have himself registered as a voter for the council, the only change being that he has to do it at the nearest magistrate’s office in the Republic. Mention of section 13(4B) of the Electoral Act in clause 1 of this Bill is intended to ensure that Coloured persons having their home in a territory and whose names already appear on the Coloured voters’ list, remain so registered after the date of independence.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that I shall move an amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper during the Committee Stage in order to bring clause 5 of this Bill into line with the corresponding clauses in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill and the Status of the Transkei Bill passed yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has set out in reasonable detail what steps are being taken to protect the franchise rights of the Coloured people in the Transkei or those who will move to the Transkei later, after the independence of that territory. I have little quarrel with all the hon. the Minister has said. I think he has given us a fairly full explanation which is completely clear to me.

However, there are one or two further comments I should like to make. In the first instance, I want to reaffirm that this Bill seeks to regulate the registration and voting rights of Coloured voters who may find themselves resident in an independent State, an area which was formerly an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. Because this situation may arise through no fault or desire of such voters, this legislation is now necessary as the Status of the Transkei Bill has been passed by the House and will subsequently become a law of the country. To protect the voting rights of those Coloured voters who will be resident in the Transkei after its independence, it is necessary that this Bill be passed now. The voting rights of Coloured people are provided for in the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, but the mechanics, as the hon. the Minister has tried to point out, of how they exercise that right, are provided for in the Electoral Act, which is presently being dealt with.

Amendments to these provisions in the Electoral Amendment Act before the House will therefore apply, as I understand it, mutatis mutandis to Coloured voters in terms of section 9 of the CRC Act. However, to ensure that the voting rights of Coloured persons resident in the independent Transkei, or who may in future take up residence there, are provided for. Clause 1 of the Bill we are considering makes doubly sure in this regard. In paragraph (b)(ii) it is provided that the roll of Coloured voters resident in the Transkei shall continue until the next delimitation, which means that the present voters retain the right to vote. Qualified Coloured voters who have their homes in the Transkei after independence, will continue to be registered as voters in the Republic. Any other Coloureds who qualify as voters in the Republic and who move to the Transkei, will be registered as voters. Coloured persons resident in the Transkei who qualify to vote after independence will also qualify to be registered as voters. Apart from these differences, it is pleasing to note that the Coloured voters are being dealt with in exactly the same manner as the White voters in respect of the protection of their franchise rights. For this reason we will support the Bill.

There is an additional provision in the Bill regarding the disqualification of voters for reasons of conviction for certain offences or detention under certain laws applicable also in respect of conviction or detention under certain laws within an independent State. These provisions are acceptable in that the offences will be committed and convictions obtained under laws passed by this Parliament and applicable in the Republic. This is, in terms of the provisions in both the Status of the Transkei Bill and the draft Transkei Constitution Bill, which provide that such laws will continue to apply in the Transkei after it becomes independent. If the Transkei, in the future, radically amends its legislation, there will be time enough for a review of the provisions of our relevant laws. In the meantime, we in these benches are completely satisfied that the laws which apply there—those passed by this Parliament—will be properly administered by the Transkei and are happy indeed that the situation can be treated with confidence. In fact, we have confidence that the new State of the Transkei—which we have created by legislation passed in this House—will properly administer those laws. Therefore we do not think the amendments which have been moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch are necessary and we will certainly not support them.

I have indicated that we support the Bill, but in doing so I have also to indicate that although the Bill protects the franchise right of Coloured voters in an independent Transkei, that franchise right is of less value than the franchise of the White voters. The Coloured voters are in fact voting for an authority which is subordinate and subservient to this Parliament. This Bill flows directly from the granting of independence to the Transkei by this Parliament. I myself and all hon. members in this House, the representatives of the White electorate, have had the opportunity of participating fully in that momentous debate. I advisedly call it that, because I think the debate we have had has ushered a new era in the South African political field. However, this is not the case in respect of the Coloureds. The White voters whose stance differs from that of the Government and who believe that the fragmentation of the Republic is not in the best interests of all the people of South Africa, have had ample opportunity to state their case. We in these benches have had to opportunity of emphasizing the great advantage which a federal arrangements has for regulating and managing the affairs of a plural society without resorting to the fragmentation of the Republic. I have no doubt in my mind that this view coincides with the view of the vast majority of the Coloured electorate. However, in this great debate on a matter which affects their future as much as it affects our future, they have not had the opportunity of participating, and of making their point of view known.

Apart from that, we on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to start with, I want to congratulate the official Opposition on the realism they have displayed in the case of this Bill, by immediately lending it their support. However, they did not do so in the case of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. Initially they opposed it at the Second Reading and subsequently during the Committee Stage, and they only gave it their support during the Third Reading.

Basically, what we have here is a Bill which is similar in effect to the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, which has just been passed by the House. It is also a Bill which is consequential to the Status of the Transkei Bill and, in point of fact, is in the first instance an administrative measure by means of which to maintain the franchise of Coloureds, as in the case of the Whites, after the independence of the Transkei. The principles involved here have already been discussed in depth during the discussion of the Status of the Transkei Bill and also during the discussion of The Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. There is therefore no need for a lengthy debate on the principles contained in this Bill.

However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the Standpoint of the official Opposition, in this case in regard to Coloureds who may settle in the homeland after it has become independent. The hon. member repeated the misgivings voiced by the hon. member for Green Point during the previous debate, viz. that S.A. citizens in this category cannot lay claim to the protection of their franchise in the Republic of South Africa.

I cannot agree that there is a difference in principle between those who will settle in the homeland after it has become independent and those who, for example, settle there between now and the date of independence. Basically their position is the same in the respect that in both cases they know exactly what their position will be in the future, after independence. They are aware of the fact that they will then be resident in a foreign State. If, despite this, they then go and settle in that State after today, then surely they know that from the date of independence they will be living in a foreign state. The people who will go and live there between today and independence are therefore in the same position as those who go and settle there after independence.

I also want to maintain that White or Coloured citizens of South Africa who are already resident in the Transkei, in this case, should also have realized a long time ago that they would sooner or later be living in an independent State. Surely it has not been from today only that the Government’s policy has been to move in the direction of independence of the homelands. If these people have stayed there voluntarily over the past few years, then surely they have voluntarily placed themselves in a position where they will eventually be living in a foreign State. However, if one accepts that there is justification for upholding the franchise of these people—and I believe there is, and I believe, too, that we all agree that there is—then one can find no justification for discriminating against S.A. citizens who settle there later. I say that I do not believe that there is any substance in the misgivings of the UP about this measure. I think that the misgivings voiced in this connection by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central have already been replied to very effectively in previous debates, and I think that the reason for his nevertheless having mentioned them in this debate as well, is only so as not to say quite straightforwardly that they agree with the measure, and thereby have done with it. They did just want to try and score a point.

The amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Rondebosch are also a precise repetition of the standpoint stated by the hon. member for Sandton in connection with the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, a standpoint which, I believe, has also been thoroughly exposed in a previous debate, inter alia, by the hon. member for Green Point and—if I may say so in passing—I cannot understand how a man can adopt so correct a standpoint in regard to one matter and then be so wide off the mark as the hon. member for Green Point was in that case. But I entirely agree with him that what the attitude displayed in this connection by the hon. members of the PRP really amounts to—and the hon. member also said this—is one of two things. The one possibility is that they have no confidence in the legislative abilities and the courts of law of the homelands after independence. Alternatively, this attitude is merely a further manifestation of their accommodating standpoint with regard to communism, terrorism and permissiveness, as we have found it to be in innumerable other cases. It is pointless for those hon. members to come and assure us that they are not soft on these things, because every time measures aimed at dealing with this kind of thing are considered, they come along with this kind of amendment.

Sir, suffice it to say that we welcome the support of the Official Opposition, and we reject in advance the standpoint which will be advanced by the members of the PRP, as it appears from the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members do not interrupt me, I shall be brief. The hon. member for Mossel Bay made one point with which I agree entirely, and it is that this legislation is equivalent to the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. However, what I find very astonishing—and I shall come back to some of the points made by the hon. member in connection with the amendments in my name—is specifically that despite the fact that the legislation is equivalent, there is such a major variation in the standpoints adopted by the Official Opposition. As far as the Whites and their electoral laws are concerned, they advanced a reasoned amendment and argued the matter rather hotly, but now, when the electoral laws of the Coloureds are affected, they have no argument at all, except that of support, and they say that they simply accept everything that is stated. To me this standpoint seems to involve a certain amount of contradiction and inconsistency. If it is true that the nature of the legislation in this specific case is precisely the same as that relating to the Whites, then it seems to me that the same arguments apply, and consequently the same standpoint must be adopted with regard to this matter. This is exactly what we intend to do here. We are going to adopt the same standpoint as that which we adopted with regard to the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] I am not going to repeat all the previous arguments, and if there are not so many interjections, perhaps I shall be able to state my standpoint very briefly. This of course depends entirely on the nature of the interjections. As far as we are concerned, three points are involved here.

The first is the status of the Coloured voter before independence. It has already been said—and we agree—that something must be done about this. Then of course we come to the voters who are going to live there after independence. This is the second aspect. While we were discussing the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, the hon. the Minister of the Interior made the point that the position with regard to this legislation was equivalent to that relating to the urban Bantu. I need not, of course, repeat all the arguments we have had with regard to the urban Bantu, but there is a difference in principle between the Government and ourselves in that regard. The point at issue there is that the urban Bantu has to exercise his political rights in an area he does not reside in. The position with regard to the Coloureds is therefore similar to the position with regard to those urban Bantu. This is a basic difference in principle. I believe that initially the Official Opposition differed with regard to this point too, but apparently they do not feel so strongly about it now. The third principle concerns the fact that the franchise of a South African citizen must not be dependent on the judicial administration of another country. Of course, to a certain extent the hon. the Minister of the Interior had already sketched for the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs the lines along which he could argue this matter, and we are of course told that our standpoint in this connection can be explained in one of two ways.

Either we have no confidence in the ability of the Transkeians to pass legislation or to apply it in a way which would be acceptable to us, or else we are “soft”—as the hon. member for Mossel Bay says—on things like terrorism, communism, etc. With one of those typically resounding declamations which -sound fine in the House but mean nothing in practice, the hon. member for Durban Point said that terrorism here was the same as terrorism there, and that communism here was the same as communism there.

However, I want to mention a few illustrations. Solzhenitsyn was sent to an institution for the mentally ill in his fatherland because he wrote things which were not acceptable to the rulers of his country.

That is communism.

Precisely. He was declared mentally ill in that specific society. However, suppose he was a Coloured who had come to South Africa. Under the previous legislation he would be regarded as someone who was either subversive or mentally ill. This of course illustrates the principle. In various societies, in various states, there are various ideas about what is subversive. However our standpoint is very clear, viz. that our amendments do not aim to create a situation in which any Coloured, White or other person should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the South African courts of law—viz. outside the jurisdiction of these specific laws. That is the point we are making. Legislation of this kind which seeks to deal with specific problems such as subversion and communism is usually contentious legislation and to a large extent it is consistent with the standpoint of the government in any specific society. There are illustrations of this. In some societies in Africa—and I am not going to mention any names now—if a person who refuses to stand still when the State President’s motor-car passes, then that deed is regarded as nigh treason. This is an illustration, and when I quote these illustrations, I do not want to imply thereby that the same is going to happen here. This merely reflects the difference there can be between various systems of law. This also reflects the fact that every society must have the right to determine under which circumstances its own citizens may lose their franchise, without providing statutorily in advance that whatever the nature of the legislation which may be brought into effect in another society, it automatically means that it can affect the rights of those people as voters. These are the same arguments we have had before. I have simply made another attempt to illustrate the matter here.

I want to state very clearly that the two alternatives which the hon. the Minister of the Interior mentioned earlier, which were repeated by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, form no part whatsoever of the motivation for our own amendments. They concern the fundamental standpoint on principle that the franchise of the South African citizen, whether he be Coloured or White or whatever, should not be dependent on the judicial administration of another country. For this reason, and on the basis of exactly the same standpoints which were stated with regard to the previous piece of legislation, we are unable to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay seems to have got himself a little bit mixed up. He said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had expressed doubts regarding this Bill. I do not believe that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central expressed any doubts at all. I believe that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central put it quite clearly to the hon. the Minister that, accepting what is here now, and what has already been approved by this House, he supported the Bill. Apart from the one reservation that if in the future an independent State should amend or repeal the Acts which apply today, we should have another look at this, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central gave his unreserved support to this Bill.

What about section 13(4B)?

Mr. Speaker, this is the whole point. I believe that both the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Rondebosch have a procedural problem in this regard. The Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, which has just gone through all its stages in this House, contains certain provisions which we in the official Opposition opposed, but it is not competent for us, in a debate on this Bill, to oppose those provisions. There is nothing in this Bill which is now before us which applies those provisions to this particular Bill, or to the Coloured people. If the hon. member for Mossel Bay looks at the Electoral Act, he will see that in terms of section 9 of the Act, those provisions do apply to the Coloured people, but there is nothing in this Bill which enables me at this stage to discuss those provisions. If I did so, I would be out of order, because there is nothing in the Bill which refers to section 9 or to those provisions in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill.

Look at paragraph (b)(i), as amended by clause 1.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member means paragraph (b)(ii), as amended by clause 1. All that is done in terms of paragraph (b)(ii) is to apply the new section 13(4B). I want to say here and now that, as far as we are concerned, section 13(4B) was acceptable to us. The one which was not acceptable to us was section 13(4A). Where was the hon. member when we discussed that? The amendments we moved were to section 13(4A) and not to section 13(4B). I am not empowered to deal with section 13(4A) in terms of this Bill. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member at last concedes the point, Sir. He sees my point entirely. I wonder whether the hon. member for Rondebosch has paid attention to the argument. Exactly the same argument applies as far as he and his party are concerned. The attitude which they are adopting is out of court, and certainly out of Parliament, as far as this Bill is concerned. Let me put it to the hon. member for Rondebosch in another way. He suggested that we should now move the amendments in respect of the Coloured voters which we tried to move when we debated the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. If it were competent to move those—I have already satisfied the House that we cannot do so—and if we did in fact move them and they happened to be accepted by the House, we would be placing the Coloured voters in a weaker position than the White voters. I do not believe that it is right that we should be asked to do such a thing. In fact, we are being absolutely consistent when we say, as did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, that whatever is decided in respect of the White voters in the Transkei must also apply to the Coloured voters. The Coloured voters must not be put in a weaker position, as my friend, the hon. member for Rondebosch, implies we should do.

The hon. member for Rondebosch mentioned the question of our opposition to the fact these people will now be registered in the magisterial offices closest to their homes. That argument cannot apply to the Coloured people.

I did not raise that point.

The hon. member says he did not raise it. I accept that. I want to make the point that the objection that we raised to the relevant provision of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill does not apply here, because one constituency completely surrounds the Transkei so that the community of interests—the problem we had with the previous Bill—does not apply at this stage. I do not believe it is necessary for me to say any more. I am sure the hon. the Minister and the House have got the message. We support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the official Opposition for their support of this Bill. The hon. member who has just spoken—he is rather fond of speaking—used a very sound argument against the PRP speaker on this specific occasion.

Both of them did.

The most important point he made was that as far as this Bill was concerned we could not again conduct the debate we conducted earlier this afternoon with regard to the Bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior. That would not be meaningful. That is why I am not going to reply to what has been said here.

Merely for the sake of interest I want to tell hon. members how many Coloureds in the Transkei are involved here. The sum total, young and old, is 7 532. About half of them are male and the other half are female. The number of Coloured voters in the Transkei involved here is about 500. I want to let that suffice. I want to thank hon. members once again for their support.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 22 and 23, to omit “or in an independent State”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 30, to omit all the words after “1967)” up to and including “terrorism” in line 33;
3. (3) on page 3, in lines 41 and 42, to omit “or in an independent State”;
4. (4) on page 5, in line 6, to omit all the words after “Council” up to and including “liquor” in line 10;
5. (5) on page 5, in line 24, to omit all the words after “342” up to and including “school” in line 27.

I shall not discuss these amendments at great length because all the arguments have been stated repeatedly. I just want to say that the arguments I advanced in the Second Reading are equally valid in this case. However I doubt, Mr. Chairman, whether you will accept the amendments.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert and Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to say that since nothing whatsoever has changed between the Second and Third Reading, our standpoint remains the same. We oppose the Third Reading.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker I move—

With reference to the Government’s decision to grant full independence to the Transkei, the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council has decided that the education services and the payment of social pensions and allowances which it now provides to Coloureds with South African citizenship in the Transkei, are to be continued after the date of its independence.

In order to give effect to the abovementioned decision and authorize the Coloured Persons Representative Council to devote its funds to this end, it is necessary to amplify the definition of “Coloured” in the various Acts which are applicable. At present the definition is based upon the Population Registration Act of 1950, which will not be applicable to an independent Transkei. As the co-ordinating department with regard to the payment of social pensions and grants with respect to the various population groups, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions deals with the necessary amendments by means of the Pension Laws Amendment Bill. As far as education is concerned, the necessary amplification of the definition of “Coloured” is effected by means of the Bill under discussion.

Since it is possible that other Bantu homelands in the Republic will also obtain independence in the near future, it is deemed advisable not merely to pay special attention to the Transkei, but to amplify the laws concerned in such a way that they will also make provision for continuing the above mentioned services in any other area in the Republic which may become independent.

The actual provision of the services concerned in the Transkei by the Administration of Coloured Affairs is arranged by means of formal agreements with the Transkeian Government, which have already reached an advanced stage. As far as education is concerned, the agreement makes provision for: (a) the establishment, erection and maintenance of Government schools and hostels; (b) the granting of financial aid to state-supported schools; (c) the equipping and supply of such schools; and (d) the provision of staff and related matters such as conditions of employment and accommodation. In this connection is must be borne in mind that the present Coloured teaching staff are either inhabitants of the Transkei, or have come there or settled there of their own free will.

All immovable property which belongs to the Administration of Coloured Affairs, will be transferred to the Transkei and let for teaching purposes at a nominal rent, after the date of transfer. At present there are three types of Coloured school in the Transkei, namely: (a) government schools of which the buildings and grounds belong to the government; (b) government schools on rented grounds; and (c) government subsidized schools and hostels of which the buildings and grounds are the property of private bodies—for instance church authorities.

It is only with respect to the junior schools at Butterworth, Umtata, Lady Frere and Sterkspruit that the buildings and plots are Government property. Only one Government school, namely the junior school at Mount Frere, stands on rented property. The rest are government subsidized schools on private property—a total of 32 schools which are attended by Coloureds. According to the latest information the number of pupils is 2 355 and 100 teachers are employed.

The Government considers it right and proper that services provided to Coloureds, should not simply be cancelled if a territory obtains its independence. The question has been raised whether the education service for Coloureds in the Transkei should not be continued for a limited period of time only, after independence. A definite reply cannot, however, be given to this question at this juncture, since large numbers of Coloureds may decide in time to move to the Republic, while others may decide to accept Transkeian citizenship and will therefore be compelled to integrate with the Transkei’s own education service. Due to these possibilities provision is made in the above mentioned draft agreement for the education services to be terminated by mutual notice, if and when such a step may appear to be necessary. The same principle will also be applied to other parts of the Republic which may obtain their independence.

In this case, too, I shall move an amendment as printed on the Order Paper during the Committee Stage in order to bring the provision concerned into line with other legislation dealt with today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has explained the implications of the Bill in his Second Reading speech, and I think he has explained it in reasonable detail. The basic thing that is important is that in terms of the Bill provision is now being made to make it possible for the Administration of Coloured Affairs to maintain schools that it presently maintains in the Transkei for Coloured education once the Transkei receives its independence. The most important issue is the fact that there will be an agreement between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei. The hon. the Minister, if I heard him correctly, outlined some of the details that will figure in the agreement.

It seems to me vitally important that there must be an arrangement which the Government of the Transkei agrees to accept, because at the present time the Administration of Coloured Affairs owns considerable property in the Transkei, and I presume that the property will then be handed to the Transkeian Government and that these properties will be leased back for a nominal fee. On that basis the present institutions which are providing education for the more or less 2 000 Coloured pupils that are there will continue to function.

From our side we are satisfied that, in terms of the Bill and in terms of the agreement that will be concluded with the Transkeian Government, the education of Coloured children who are presently resident in the Transkei and their future educational requirements, are being properly dealt with. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech was so complete and his motivation was so acceptable that I do not want to say very much about this Bill. The matter was further discussed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. An interesting possibility which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister, is of course the degree to which the Coloured population in the Transkei, may in due course decide to register with or become part of the Transkeian education system rather than the education system which is being established for them by the Department of Coloured Affairs.

We have no objections to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. members who spoke and granted their support to this. I just want to reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I refer to the agreement in broad outline and mentioned a few points concerning what it would be about. Unfortunately the agreement is not yet available. It has not yet been cleared by the Transkeian Cabinet. However, it follows more or less the same pattern as the agreement on White education for which provision will be made with the Transkei.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that during the short session of 1974 a comprehensive amendment to one section of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963, namely section 12A, a section which referred to visits by nuclear ships to South African harbours, was submitted to Parliament for approval. Owing to developments in the national nuclear programme during the past few years, it has now become imperative for certain amendments relating to nuclear installations on land to be effected to the Act as soon as possible. The objectives of this Bill are, inter alia—

1. (a) to improve certain definitions and terminology;
2. (b) to enable the Atomic Energy Board to confine its licensing and inspection functions to those plants, sites and situations where the potential for nuclear damage is or may in its opinion be significant as far as health and safety requirements are concerned;
3. (c) to make provision for the levying of fees for the licensing and inspection of nuclear sites on land;
4. (d) to extend the conditions under which persons sustaining nuclear damage may claim compensation;
5. (e) to extend the powers of the inspectors of the Board; and
6. (f) to make provision for the revision of fines.

Consequential amendments arising from previous amendments of the Act and the Atomic Energy Act, 1967 are also being included in the Bill.

Clause 1:

†It is current practice to use the term “nuclear accident” to describe an occurrence which causes nuclear damage and to reserve the term “nuclear incident” to describe any fault or maloperation or abnormal transient which, if not corrected, could lead to a nuclear accident. The term “nuclear incident” in section 1 and where it appears in other sections of the Act is therefore substituted by “nuclear accident”.

The present definition of “nuclear damage” relates nuclear damage only to radio-active properties of nuclear-hazard material. Since the energy releases which may cause nuclear damage, arise not only from radio-active properties, but also from the nuclear energy and the radiations associated with nuclear fission of such material, an amendment to the definition of “nuclear damage” is proposed so as to include both these processes.

As a result of the amendment in 1974 to section 2, the Act no longer bears any reference to the term “fissionable components” and it can therefore be deleted. The definition of the term “nuclear energy” is amended to bring it into line with the definition thereof in the Atomic Energy Act, 1967.

An amendment to the definition of “nuclear-hazard material” is necessary as the present definition lacks precision and does not include the many processes associated with the nuclear fuel cycle which involve solutions, mixtures or compounds of nuclear fuel, which under certain conditions can cause a serious nuclear accident.

Hon. members will notice that it is also suggested that the term “nuclear installation” be amended. This amendment will be explained simultaneously with clause 2 of the Bill for reasons which will soon be obvious.

Clauses 2 and 3:

In terms of the definition of “nuclear installation” in section 1 of the Act, any kind of installation designed or adapted for, or which may involve the processing, storage or disposal of nuclear-hazard material referred to in subparagraphs b(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the definition, is a nuclear installation for the purposes of the Act only if these activities are capable of causing nuclear damage. So far as present scientific knowledge is concerned, however small the amount of nuclear-hazard material and however low the intensity of radiation associated with it, nuclear damage can still be caused. Many activities concerned with the handling and processing of nuclear-hazard material involve potential and actual risks which are extremely small and these risks may, for example, often be lower than the risks of nuclear damage arising from natural background radiation. It is argued that the Act was not intended to relate to activities associated with such low-potential risks. It is accepted that it is impossible to eliminate all risks to health and safety. The Atomic Energy Board, in giving effect to the provisions of this part of the Act, has established standards for the normal and accidental release of radioactivity and applies corresponding controls to the design, manufacture and operation of nuclear installations to ensure that the risks associated with these installations compare favourably with the risks arising from other similar major enterprises. The risks corresponding to the Board’s standards are, for example, somewhat lower than the risk associated with civil air travel or the risk of being killed by lightning. Where even the potential for exceeding these low risks does not exist, it seems pointless to invoke the formal licensing procedures.

*In view of what I have just said, provision is being made to exempt activities associated with nuclear-hazard material, and of which the potential for nuclear damage is so low that the standards of the Board will be complied with even without the application of any control measures, from the formal licensing procedure. However, the amendment that is being proposed in clause 2 is to the effect that no person, other than the Atomic Energy Board may use a site for the purposes of a nuclear installation except under the authority of a licence granted by the Board or unless, in the case of a nuclear installation for the processing, storage or removal of nuclear-hazard material, the Board has in writing declared that the potential for nuclear damage associated with the actual activities in or at the nuclear installations in question is of such a nature that the limits of risk which conform to the health and safety requirements as determined and laid down by the Board from time to time cannot be exceeded. It is also being provided in clause 3 that a declaration by the Board that the limits of risk in respect of a nuclear installation associated with the processing, storage or removal of nuclear-hazard material are not being exceeded, may at any time be amended or repeated.

In accordance with the policy agreed upon by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, and myself, provision is now being made in this clause for the levying of fees for the licensing of nuclear installations. The amendment of section 12A of the Act that was approved in 1974 already makes provision for the levying of licence fees in respect of nuclear-powered ships visiting South African harbours.

Since the introduction of the Act in 1963 the actual value of the rand has diminished by a factor of 1,95. As a result of this, and mindful of the present high rate of cost increases, it is being proposed that the maximum fine of R1 000 if a person should be convicted of having used a site for the purposes of a nuclear installation without having obtained a licence from the Atomic Energy Board or of having contravened other provisions of section 2 of the Act, be doubled to a maximum of R2 000.

While I am dealing with the question of fines, I want to point out to hon. members that for the same reason we are also proposing in clauses 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill that the maximum fines which may be imposed on conviction for offences in terms of the provisions of the Act, be doubled. Section 7 of the Act provides that, if a nuclear accident occurs on or in connection with the use of a licensed site, the licensee in question shall report the same forthwith to the board, and if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R200. The fine of R200 in this case does not reflect the serious nature of such an offence. Because it is necessary for emergency measures to be taken as soon as possible after a nuclear accident, delay may result in the injury and death of people and damage to property. In clause 6, therefore, it is being proposed that the maximum fine of R200 increased to a maximum of R2 000.

Clause 4:

In terms of the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section 5, the licensee is liable for all nuclear damage that is caused by anything which occurs on the licensed site or arising from the carriage of nuclear-hazard material to and from the site. However, subsection (3) provides inter alia that the licensee is not liable for nuclear damage that may be attributed to vis major. This exclusion is not in accordance with the concept of absolute liability where the licensee is held liable throughout even though he can in no way be responsible for the cause of the accident.

In addition I must point out that the provision which is being made in the Act that the Government may intervene to ensure that claims are met, refers only to those claims for which the licensee is held responsible but which he cannot pay in view of the fact that the security required of him is inadequate. No provision is therefore being made in the Act to protect the community through the medium of indemnity in the case of certain possible major causes of serious nuclear accidents.

The Atomic Energy Board investigates the risks of nuclear accidents which are caused by vis major, for example natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and tidal waves, in the same way as major risks associated with other possible causes of major accidents which are not included in the concept of vis major. Before the licence is granted, all these factors are taken into consideration, and there appears to be no reason for the licensee being held liable in certain cases and not in others.

In anticipation of possible accidents, the Act provides that the licensee shall provide security to the satisfaction of the Minister. However, the Act also provides that, if the security provided in this manner is not sufficient to meet any claims that may arise, I have to submit a report on the particular accident to Parliament in which a recommendation is made that Parliament appropriate the money for the granting of financial assistance in respect of the amount by which such claims exceed or are likely to exceed, the security so available. There is no reason to assume that the need caused by vis major will occur more often, or that the amounts will be higher than in the case of accidents which arise as a result of so-called conventional causes, because the latter causes cover a greater range of possibilities.

Clause 6:

† Subsections (2) and (3) of section 7 of the Act relate to the investigations leading to the defining of the area and period of duration of a nuclear accident and the recording of particulars of persons concerned therein. Taking into account the meteorological and hydrological dispersion characteristics associated with a nuclear site, the radio-active decay properties of nuclear-hazard material, the area affected by a nuclear accident will continually expand with time. However, the risk of nuclear damage associated with the accident will attenuate quite rapidly with increasing distance from the site and with time will eventually fall below the level of risk associated with natural background radiation, although it will never completely reduce to zero. It will therefore be possible to define boundaries for the affected zone outside which, in the opinion of the Board, the risks are acceptably low and consistent with the requirements for health and safety. The amendment of subsection (2) makes provision for the definition of the boundaries of the affected zone on a practical basis.

Clause 8:

*In terms of section 9 of the Act action for compensation for nuclear damage shall be commenced within 10 years after the date of the event or series of events which gave rise to the right to claim such compensation. According to the latest available information it is accepted that nuclear damage might in certain cases only be discernible after an even considerably longer period than 10 years after exposure to radiation has taken place. When claims for compensation are settled by way of negotiation, it is also deemed necessary that the claimant should be protected against deliberate delaying tactics, and that the person who is liable to pay compensation should also be protected against exorbitant claims. The amendment of section 9 is intended to make provision in the Act for these possibilities.

Clause 9:

In paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act it is being provided that the inspectors of the Board shall have access to any licensed site and to certain information connected therewith. However, to enable the Board to fulfil its responsibilities in terms of the Act, an additional right of access to certain information is necessary. For example it is of the utmost importance that the inspectors of the board have the right of access, as well as the right to carry out inspections in order to ensure that the proposed sites are suitable, that the necessary high production standards of components for nuclear installations are maintained and that the appropriate licensing procedures can be put into operation in respect of any activities involving nuclear-hazard material. Consequently it is being proposed that paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 2 be amended accordingly and that paragraph (c) be inserted to make provision for the aforementioned additional powers for inspectors of the Board. Consequently the proviso after paragraph (c) is also being adapted. The expression “creates no danger” appearing in the present proviso is not in conformity with the true state of affairs since any action constitutes a measure of risk, no matter how small. Consequently it is also being proposed that the intention of this proviso be elucidated by stating that if a dispute arises as to whether a specific test is likely to have a detrimental effect on any person’s health or could result in injury to any person or damage to any property, the matter shall be referred to the Board, whose decision in that regard shall be final.

As I have already said, an agreement has been reached with the hon. Minister of Finance in regard to the policy as far as the levying of fees for the licensing of nuclear installations is concerned. It has also been agreed that the Minister of Mines be empowered to demand that fees in respect of the inspection of nuclear installations be paid, and the necessary provision is now being made in this clause.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent news that South Africa is to have its first commercial nuclear reactor at Koeberg, this Bill would seem to be very topical. It is topical because the announcement of the order of the twin reactor for Koeberg does, in fact, initiate a new phase in the development of nuclear installations in South Africa. Since the nuclear installations will not be operational until 1982 one wonders, however, what the reason is for the urgency of introducing these amendments at the present stage, six years in advance of those reactors becoming critical.

The hon. the Minister has in fact said that developments up to the present time have created such a state of urgency. We have, however, already reached a late stage of this session, and looking at the largely technical and regulatory changes which are being made to the original Act by the Bill, one really wonders what exactly the nature of this urgency is. The hon. the Minister has not in fact given us any convincing reasons as to why this urgency should have arisen and as to why, since this major new development in nuclear installations is not likely to become effective for another six years, we should in fact be passing this Bill at this stage, six years in advance.

The Bill, as I have said, is mainly technical and regulatory. I do not believe that we have any serious objections to any of the provisions of this Bill. Such minor comments and suggestions as we have to improve certain clauses, we shall raise during the Committee Stage. At this stage I should merely like to say that we have no objection in principle to this Bill. We shall give it passage at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to nuclear installations, nuclear reactors and the like, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I want to concede immediately that there is a great deal of technical nature linked with this Bill, of which I have very little understanding.

Well, sit down then!

I can well understand the hon. member’s comment, Sir, but there are a certain number of associated factors which I think all of us can appreciate and understand. Reference has already been made to this by the previous speaker. We have heard, for instance of the intention to set up a nuclear reactor at Koeberg. Whilst it is true that it will only come into operation in 1982, I believe that it is right and good that we should have this legislation as soon as possible, if for no other reason—and there may well be other reasons—than to give the assurance to the people of South Africa that adequate provision is being made for the best safety measures possible.

As far as we are concerned, we welcome this Bill. We welcome the extra provisions and the changes that are being made, for instance in regard to the increase in fines and amounts of money that have to be paid. It is not often that we in these benches welcome the increase of fines, but we believe that this is an important matter and, bearing in mind the point the hon. the Minister has already made regarding inflation, we believe that this is highly necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should allow this moment to pass without emphasizing what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech. He said this—

This is why we believe that the necessary precautions and the necessary measures, which are introduced in this Bill, are so important. It is even more important and noteworthy to emphasize in this House and, indeed, in the country—because we are now moving into another era—that it is accepted, in the words of the hon. the Minister, “that it is impossible to eliminate all risks to health and safety”. That is a very serious statement and I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister has stressed it, because I think it is something we ought to keep in mind.

There is only one other point I should like to raise, a point that will be raised again in the Committee Stage. I just give notice of it now in order that the hon. the Minister may reply to it a little later on. I wish to refer to clause 6 of the Bill, which substitutes a new section for section 7 of the principal Act. Whilst I appreciate that we cannot really speak about the principal Act itself, certain changes are in fact being made to it here. I wish to refer to the proposed new subsection (2), which in part reads as follows—

In view of the serious nature of this legislation, it seems to me that it would be far better to say that the board “shall direct an inspector” to act as is provided for. The very fact that an accident has been reported seems to me to indicate that this should be directive rather than permissive legislation in this particular connection.

With those few words we support the Second Reading of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. As they themselves would have noticed, it is of a highly technical nature. Since we are now entering a new era, we must be very careful in regard to these matters.

Perhaps I could reply at once to the problem raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Actually, the previous hon. speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis, had already referred to that problem. He wanted to know why it was necessary to introduce this measure so long before the time. The fact of the matter is that we are engaged in further developments, and that companies supplying the materials want the necessary security long before they participate in export projects. Hon. members will know that these substances are very sensitive. That is why one must have the necessary security and protection which this Bill affords long before the time. The hon. members will also know that the Atomic Energy Board is the responsible body which has to examine all sites and conditions and make sure, long before the time, that these are the necessary built-in safety measures. Take for example the developments at Koeberg. The Atomic Energy Board is the body which, in the last resort, will have to take care of security there. Therefore this Bill is quite timeous. Since we may possibly proceed to the development of a commercial uranium enrichment plant, the Atomic Energy Board has to carry out site inspections, etc., long before the time. Hon. members will therefore understand that we have to introduce this legislation now in order to be able to do so. Therefore it is not an untimely action on our part to introduce this legislation now. In this regard I should like to refer back to what I said in my Second Reading speech, viz.—

As I have said, this is a highly technical matter, and I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for having submitted here that we should not make laws long before the time. That is quite in order, and in view of this I think the hon. member will agree with me that the Atomic Energy Board does in fact need this legislation at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, as you will know, you and I both attended the University of Stellenbosch. For that reason I think it would also interest you to know that the score at the moment is 7—0 in favour of the Maties. This is just by the way.

Thank you. In any case, I think that the Maties’ agenda is even longer than ours.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer you to paragraph (g), which provides for the definition of “nuclear installation”. Sir, “nuclear installation” is really the key word in the entire Bill and here we have a new definition of what a nuclear installation is. Without necessarily asking the hon. the Minister for a reply now or to give me any assurances, because these are admittedly highly technical matters, I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether the definition of “nuclear installation” is entirely adequate. The definition of “nuclear installation” covers a nuclear reactor and also “any other kind of installation designed or adapted for, or which may involve” several other things. These things are: (1) the production or use of nuclear energy and (2) the carrying out of any process involving nuclear hazard material.

Nuclear hazard material has been redefined in paragraph (e) to include “other material containing nuclear fuel”. Paragraph (g)(b)(iii) and (iv) deal with the storage and the disposal of nuclear hazard material. I would like to put to the hon. the Minister that there are certain kinds of equipment which are in fact able to cause radiation danger, but which are not precisely defined under these four headings as being nuclear installations. I have in mind such things as accelerators, which are designed to send nuclear particles along a defined path in order to strike a target and there to produce a certain effect which can give use to nuclear radiation damage. I am not certain whether this is included in paragraph (g)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). I also have in mind certain kinds of industrial equipment which also may not be covered under these four headings because they do not involve the production or use of nuclear energy, they do not involve the carrying out of a process necessarily involving nuclear hazard material as defined, and they certainly do not involve the storage of such material or the disposal of such material. Without taking it any further at this stage, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that some thought might be given to the addition of a further paragraph to deal with research or industrial equipment which requires shielding against radiation damage or, alternatively, research or industrial equipment which is likely to cause, or which may cause, radiation damage. I believe, Sir, that there is a special class of equipment or installation which falls between the definitions of “nuclear installation” that we have here and which may be looked at. Apart from that suggestion, we have no objection to clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pretend to be clever about these highly technical matters, for I think we should be very careful here. The terminology used in the Bill is international terminology. It is scientific terminology. Perhaps the hon. member’s views are correct, but I doubt it, because the people who worked on this are very expert people in this highly specialized field. If I, as Minister and layman, have to venture into this field and find that the legislation refers to “any other kind of installation designed or adapted for” and goes on to refer to “the production, the carrying out, the storage and the disposal of”, then it satisfies me, but the hon. member wants us to look at this again. However, I think the hon. member must agree that we leave it as it is. If it appears to be necessary, we can return to it again. We shall look at this again, but for the present we must allow it to go through as it stands.

My point is that what is involved here is research and not necessarily …

As I have said, we can look at this again, but I must say that it is a difficult matter. For example, there is the hon. member for Etosha, who is reasonably knowledgeable in this sphere, but I do not know whether he has any opinion about this. As far as I am concerned, I can only say that the Atomic Energy Board is highly satisfied with the formulation as it stands at present.

They were satisfied with this proposal?

Yes, they were satisfied with the proposal. The change is being effected at their suggestion.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, in raising certain points in the Committee Stage, I am not pretending that I know better than the Atomic Energy Board. It sometimes takes a very simple mind to see where the experts have perhaps left something out. If the Atomic Energy Board were infallible in its legislation, we would not have to deal with so many amendments in respect of the Bills affecting nuclear energy as do in fact come to this House. Quite clearly one does not hold it against the Atomic Energy Board, for they cannot anticipate every contingency. I merely raise this as proof that even the best of us are not infallible.

The only point I wish to raise under clause 2 is that in terms of subsection (c)—

As far as one can anticipate at this stage, it is Escom, as the statutory body authorized to produce electricity for South Africa, that is most likely to be the body applying to the Atomic Energy Board for a licence to develop nuclear power. The question arises, therefore, whether it is in fact a useful principle that a statutory body like Escom, which is obliged in terms of its statutes to produce electricity at the lowest possible cost for South Africa, should be obliged to pay a fee to the Atomic Energy Board—another State institution—for a licence in order to get permission to produce such electricity. I would entirely agree that if electricity were privately generated in South Africa and if this clause, in the Minister’s view, is only intended to apply to such municipalities or private organizations as might in due course wish to generate electricity by means of nuclear power, then it is fair enough that such organizations, private enterprises, should apply to the Atomic Energy Board for a licence and should pay a licence fee. Since electricity is very largely generated by a corporation of the State in this country, the necessity for Escom to apply to the Atomic Energy Board and to pay licence fees seems to be a little bit unnecessary. It amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul. It all comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. This is merely a comment and I do not ask the hon. the Minister necessarily to amend the Bill, but perhaps he will merely give an indication of what his policy would be in such cases.

Mr. Chairman, it is not clear to me what argument the hon. member for Von Brandis wants to put forward here. Throughout, as I see it—I am saying this in all humility—the Government is not differentiating between private bodies and its State utility organizations. If any private or other body also wants to produce electricity on a daily basis—there is a very wide field which can be covered by nuclear energy—then the same regulations which we are now discussing and approving here should be made applicable to it. I do not know whether the hon. member now wants us to adopt the standpoint that companies such as Escom or Iscor should receive special preferential rights in terms of legislation, such as those with which we are now dealing. I am putting it in this way, and the hon. member may react to it in any way he wants to.

Mr. Chairman, my proposal was not that Escom should be given preference above any private companies or municipalities. Nevertheless, I put the question to the hon. the Minister whether it was in fact good policy to expect one State corporation, which has a specific commission on behalf of the State, to pay licence fees to another State corporation or State institution to be able to do those very things for which it was established. Escom was established to generate electricity. To be able to do so it must pay licence fees to another State organization to be granted the right to do the very thing for which it was established. That was in fact the point I made. I am simply asking whether the hon. the Minister has a policy in this regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the first point that I would like to raise is the following: In terms of clause 2, if a person uses a site for nuclear purposes without having got a licence to do so, he is subject to a maximum fine of R2 000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years. This applies to producing nuclear energy or using a site for nuclear purposes when not authorized to do so. In terms of clause 3, however, if he has in fact obtained such a licence and is then told to stop producing nuclear energy and fails to do so, he is subject to a fine of R400 or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. There seems to be a very slight difference in the degree of transgression between a person who produces nuclear energy without having obtained permission to do so and the person who continues to produce nuclear energy after permission to do so has been withdrawn. In other words, if you do something without permission the fine is high and if you do something having had permission and the permission is then withdrawn, the fine is low. It seems to be an extraordinary difference in approach and I wonder if the hon. the Minister would explain this discrepancy.

Mr. Chairman, all that I can say is that this legislation, and the practice which is here being made part and parcel of it now, is actually based on the kind of legislation and practice of other countries which have had longer experience. I have no quarrel with that, for this is what usually happens. I also understand that the kind of prohibitions which are being imposed on people in one way or another are even more onerous abroad than here in South Africa. I do not want to argue about this because it is a highly technical matter. This matter was very thoroughly deliberated by the Atomic Energy Board before they produced legislation. I do not know whether there are any other reasons why the board felt that it ought to present the legislation in this way, but my department and I are perfectly satisfied that as it has been stated here, it expresses the will of the board. Research has been done on the legislation and practices in other parts of the world and I think we should allow this legislation to go through in this form.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister that inspectors who are appointed to inspect premises or institutions must have positive identification. This is something which has often been repeated by the hon. member for Berea. There is, however, something very much more important. In this specific case, where the matter is so highly technical, it may be necessary for the Department of Mines to institute a course so that inspectors will know what they are inspecting. These people will, in fact, be specialists. In view of the type of inspection and the type of work they are going to do, I feel that provision must be made …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that part of the section which is not being amended. That is not before the Committee at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. It is simply a matter I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister for the good of the country as a whole. There is no provision made for this. I have made my point and I shall not labour it. I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister please to look into the matter.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned during my Second Reading speech, it would in my view be an improvement to substitute the word “shall” for the word “may” in line 46 in the proposed section 7(2) which is introduced by clause 6. I have already mentioned why …

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may not discuss the word “may” in line 46. It is not before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, but I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of my comment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, there are two points I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first relates to the new section 10(2), as inserted by clause 9(b), which reads as follows—

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the words “if so requested by any interested person” be omitted from this proposed subsection.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that at this stage. It is not before the Committee. That part of the section is not being amended.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the point. I should then like to refer to clause 9(c), which introduces a new section 10(3), reading as follows—

The word “reasonably” is, in fact, to be deleted by this Bill, and I believe that that is wrong. I believe that an inspector visiting an installation of this kind is, in fact, approaching an installation which, in the nature of things, contains dangerous processes, and where there are security aspects, and that if in fact the inspector in this installation does things which are unreasonable …

Which are unreasonable?

… unreasonable in the eyes of the people operating the plant because of their special knowledge of the conditions within that plant, then I think they have a right to demand that the inspector, in inspecting the plant, should act reasonably. The inspector of course is presumed to know what he is doing. The inspector has certain rights and powers, but we are dealing here with a dangerous process, a process which can expose many people to danger if it is not conducted with the most meticulous care, and none know better than the people who are actually in charge of that plant what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Now, if an inspector enters a plant I think it is reasonable that the people who operate in that plant would expect the inspector to act reasonably, and I think “reasonably” is a very good word. Therefore I believe it is wrong to leave out the word “reasonably” from this clause. I cannot think for what reason it has been omitted, for surely it is consistent with the highest degree of care one would expect of an inspector in such a plant. I would therefore like to ask that the word “reasonably” be put back in this clause and I move as an amendment—

As the hon. member has put it now, it means that the clause would read “or who without reasonable cause fails to provide any information or to permit any inspection”. He does not want the word “reasonably” to be deleted. He wants to retain the word.

*I do not think this Committee should argue in this way about such a delicate matter. Nuclear power is very sensitive material and I should like to put this beyond doubt. The word “reasonably” is a word which may cause considerable dispute. It is my personal feeling that in such a delicate matter, where one really has to protect the public at all costs, it would be more dangerous to retain the word “reasonably” than it would be to leave it out. For that reason we differ on this score. I am unable to agree with the hon. member. There are very sound reasons why this word has been omitted. It is not being omitted for nothing. I was not present during the discussions when the Atomic Energy Board discussed this matter with the law advisers, but I also feel that this word should not be retained.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with clause 3, it is necessary to point out that the provision which is being amended is in the existing Post Office Act and deals with the question of the prescribing and the alteration in fees, rates or charges. That appears at present in section 3 of the Post Office Act, No. 44 of 1958, which is being amended. This section provides that such alteration can only take place subject to the approval of the State President. This approval of the State President is, I believe, a time-consuming process. I think we should bear that in mind that if we amend this section in the manner suggested, alterations to tariffs will be done very much sooner than what is the case now. The second point we have to take into account is the fact that business and industry and commerce generally, rely on fees, rates and charges which have been prescribed or determined from time to time by the Postmaster-General and approved of by the State President, in their budgeting for business purposes. I should imagine that there are certain firms which do a great deal of business through the post, like the mail order houses, which, I believe, work on a fairly tight budget. That being the case, it would be very unfortunate if a mail order house or similar organization were to budget for a particular rate or a particular tariff and then find, before it can complete its contract, that the rate or charge has been amended and consequently that the business would have to suffer a loss because it would not be able to adjust the contract under which they were dealing at that particular time. I am referring to the provision that the Postmaster-General may with the approval of the Minister by notice in the Gazette determine from time to time to alter the fees and charges, etc. The point I want to make is that I can understand that the Postmaster-General and the department, generally speaking, are bound by certain international agreements and conventions and that obviously if in terms of these conventions they are required to increase or alter or to substitute or to redetermine the present tariffs the Postmaster-General is bound by such conventions and has to do so. But there are a number of tariffs which do not fall under tariffs covered by conventions or agreements.

It is in regard to those tariffs and charges that I wish to address the House. I should also like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is an occasion where, with a bit of ingenuity, I believe we can get over the hurdle. I should not like the hon. the Minister to say to me that because I am asking for something to be enshrined in the law—which is the practice at present—he is not prepared to do so because of the fact that he is bound by international conventions and international agreements. I am prepared to concede that in so far as the hon. the Minister or the Postmaster-General is bound by such international agreements or conventions, effect can be given to them immediately and there should be no delay. However, I believe that in so far as all other fees, rates and charges are concerned, there is an opportunity for the Postmaster-General to give the general public, commerce and industry fair warning. That is all we are asking for. We believe fair warning of an impending rate change should be given and I think three months is a reasonable period for that, especially if the rate changes are domestic and bear no relation whatsoever to any rates, tariffs or charges that may have to come about as a result of international agreement or convention. Because I feel that is the way in which the matter should be dealt with, I move as an amendment—

I believe this amendment takes care of any reservations which the hon. the Minister may have and I believe he will be able to accept this amendment because it is merely including in the clause the provision that three months’ notice should be given of all domestic changes in the rates and charges, thereby making it law.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that when the department disposes of movable property, R10 000 is a reasonable limit. When one deals with second-hand machinery, it does not take very much to reach R10 000. For instance, when rebuilding a post office, telephone exchange or when replacing a manual or automatic exchange, one often finds that there is redundant equipment. For instance, there could be a stand-by diesel lighting plant, sometimes hardly used, which could easily fetch R5 000 or more, depending on its condition and size. Together with a few redundant switchboards and some other odds and ends, the limit of R10 000 is very easily reached or surpassed. The hon. the Minister might argue that this clause, concerning gifts and the disposal of articles, only refers to redundant articles or items which are no longer serviceable. However, this is not always the case. The hon. the Minister is aware that it is customary—when, for instance, rebuilding post offices, carrying out alterations, improvements or replacing a telephone exchange by an automatic exchange—that the successful tenderer is entitled to the material from the old building, unless otherwise specified in the bill of quantities. The hon. the Minister might argue that everything of value is always precluded in the bill of quantities. However, I am not suggesting that this custom is being abused, but it could very easily be abused. Who is to judge the value of any stand-by diesel lighting plant, a manual switchboard or an electric motor? Is it to be the quantity surveyor’s clerk or the architect’s clerk? A diesel plant can perhaps be 20 years old, but it might have worked for a total of 100 hours only. Who is going to value it? I should prefer the tenderers to submit a price for the equipment, for all the material in the buildings which they might collect if they do the work. It would be much better to compare the prices as submitted by the different tenderers. If there are items of little intrinsic value, but of value to collectors, then certainly the builder will know what the value of such items is.

If the hon. the Minister wishes to make a donation out of some of the equipment—I note that it has been done, inter alia, to museums, various institutions or even to local authorities—he has a value for the particular item, viz. the value which the tenderer attaches to it. I feel that if the intention is to run the Post Office on business lines—as stated in the Bill—I feel it is only business that all the materials of the Post Office, redundant or not, should be disposed of and not merely given away. They should be accounted for without exception. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, he must tell us why we should accept that the Post Office is a benevolent institution. Therefore I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with the first of a series of amendments proposed by the Official Opposition. These amendments were formulated under the guidance of the hon. member for Wynberg as the leader of the Postal Service group of the Official Opposition. He presented a whole series of interesting standpoints. However, I want to bring it to the attention of this House that these amendments have already been debated in the Other Place, and hon. members of the Opposition are fully aware of the standpoints which I adopted there as well as the grounds on which I did so. What is more, hon. members are aware that I accepted two of the amendments which they moved. In spite of that they have now moved the same amendment again here. The Other Place is sometimes called a House of Review, and I now want to address the serious request to the hon. Opposition not to make the House of Assembly a House of Repetition. I really think that we could expedite the discussion in this debate very considerably, for the standpoints of both sides have already been stated and have been weighed up against one another very thoroughly.

It would seem to me as though the Opposition cannot be very serious about the amendment the hon. member for Wynberg moved here. The existing section in the Act does not provide that a change in tariffs may only come into effect after a period of notice has expired. In other words, what the hon. member is advocating in his amendment is a new principle, which he wants to introduce. The amendment which he is now moving is in fact his fourth different attempt at introducing it. First the Opposition proposed a period of three months in the Other Place. After that they proposed a period of two months, and eventually a period of one month. Now the hon. member is proposing that we draw a distinction between internal tariffs and international tariffs, and that I should give three months’ notice in respect of internal tariffs before the change comes into operation.

I explained in the Other Place, and I also want to emphasize it here, that it has always, in the past, under the existing Act, been the practice in the Post Office to inform commerce and industry of any amendment which may arise. Let me give a few examples. As far as the increase in telephone and postal tariffs with effect from 1 May 1973 was concerned, we issued a detailed statement in Parliament, 30 March 1973 during the debate on the Post Office budget. In other words, everyone knew about this long in advance. On 29 January 1975 the Minister issued a Press statement and also announced over the radio that telephone and postal tariffs would be increased with effect from 1 April 1975. It has always been the endeavour of the Post Office to inform the public in advance of any future changes in the tariffs. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to insert a provision in the Act which will require the Post Office to give the public such notice within a specific period.

Why not?

There are all kinds of practical problems involved …

Give an example.

… and to my regret I cannot accept even the hon. member’s altered amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the hon. the Minister is unable to accept this amendment. I did not want to refer to the debate which had taken place in the Other Place, but since the hon. the Minister has referred to it, I shall also refer to it now. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to his reply to the amendment moved by Senator Poorter in the Other Place. On that occasion the hon. the Minister said that he was unable to accept the amendment because there were international agreements and conventions he could not commit through this legislation. This is the reason he advanced.

Yes, but you have just conceded that point.

I do not want to argue with the hon. the Minister about the matter. He said so and he can look it up in the Hansard of the Other Place. This is also why the amendment I have just moved differs from the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I was being accommodating, because we on this side of the House believed that the hon. the Minister might have a case to make out on this score. It is for this reason, that I have now suggested that prior notice be issued only in respect of local changes. The hon. the Minister should not complain if we persist with this. We believe this is a particularly sound amendment. The hon. the Minister did not say at all why he was unable to accept it. He simply said he was unable to accept it, but he did not say why. When I asked, by way of interjection, for an example of the practical problems, he did not reply to it. I do not think we can accept it as it stands. The hon. the Minister should tell us what the practical difficulties are.

†The hon. the Minister must remember that big brother Jac de Villiers is watching him. He is watching his antics here this afternoon. I should like him to know that. We want him to perform properly this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing about the foreign tariffs now. The hon. member conceded, with his altered amendment, that I had a valid standpoint. As regards my standpoint in respect of domestic tariffs, I just want to say that, as I put it in the Other Place, it is for practical reasons that I do not want to impose that obligation on the Post Office. One of those reasons is that such a measure would imply that the Cabinet might have to decide four months before the time on any changes which are to be made, so that three months’ notice has to be given before the change can come into operation.

It is only the Minister who has to decide. The Cabinet has nothing to do with it.

The custom is that when a person effects drastic changes to tariffs, the Cabinet has to be consulted because the Cabinet has to keep a watchful eye on economic conditions in the country. This practical problem therefore makes it impossible to impose such a burden, one which is laid down in legislation, on the Post Office. In addition it has been the practice of the Post Office throughout, and the Post Office intends to continue to do so, to inform commerce and industry and the general public in advance of any future changes in tariffs, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

During the Second Reading debate I promised to reply to certain questions put by the hon. member for Bryanston. He referred to the proposed new section 2(b)(i)(m) and clause 3 of the Bill, namely the power of the Postmaster-General to vary or cancel a contract to the detriment of the department. I want to point out to the hon. member that the State Tender Board Act, which is also applicable to the Post Office, provides that the State Tender Board may amend a contract to the detriment of the State. However, if this is done in the case of a contract of the Post Office, the consent to this of the Postmaster-General has to be obtained. This clause is merely an empowering clause to enable the Postmaster-General to give such consent.

I am also replying to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast. When this amendment was discussed in the Senate, I could not escape the impression that the discussions which followed there might even to a certain extent be a reflection, when the Hansard is subsequently read, on the Postmaster-General. I wondered whether I should accept that amendment. Before I did so, however, I caused a full report to be made to me on the reasons why that provision had been worded in that way. The report which I received was very interesting and I want to inform hon. members of its contents. The relevant provision in the Bill before this House, gives statutory expression to a decision taken by the Select Committee on Public Accounts as long ago as 1960. It is in line with section 31 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975. Although there is no objection to the principle which the hon. member advocated, the arrangement which he has in mind is not feasible. A gift of moveable property does not lend itself to appropriation because there is no payment of money involved in the transaction. Of course such donations have to be reported and the Auditor-General therefore informs Parliament of this matter in his report if he considers it necessary. Hon. members need not in any way be concerned that irregularities will occur in such cases.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s explanation with interest. As I have said before, I am not casting any reflection on anyone in the Post Office, particularly not on the Postmaster-General. The point is, what I am trying to guard against is the possibility of connivance between the architect, the quantity surveyor and the builder. The hon. the Minister speaks about disposing of Post Office equipment in the form of gifts or donations. What I want to know, however, is who places a value on those particular items when a report must be made to the Auditor-General? Does the Postmaster-General himself do it? Surely that is not very satisfactory from his own point of view because such procedure lays him open to accusations. I would much rather it were done another way, for example by way of tender. The builder or contractor can tender for the building of a post office, and in his tender indicates what he is prepared to pay for the stuff he takes over in the old post office. That could then be knocked off his price. I do not really see what the difficulty is. I am trying to suggest a method for protecting the Post Office and the Government against the wastage of money because I have seen very valuable equipment being given away when a job is being done. It is the builder who stands to gain, and in many cases one has suspicions about whether the architect knew the value of the stuff or not. For that reason I think this is a very important consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member understands the entire set-up correctly. He assumes that the contractor retains all material after demolition. This does not happen in the case of the Post Office. The equipment taken from an old post office remains the property of the Post Office. The difficulty is of course—and I tried to explain this briefly to the hon. member—that an amount of money has to be appropriated in the Estimates. In the Estimates it cannot be specified that we have donated “one obsolete post box”. This cannot be included as an item in the Estimates. This is the problem we have to cope with. Therefore I say that I have no objection to the principle raised by the hon. member, but apart from the uncertainty about the value of old equipment—and what is involved here is not diesel locomotives and similar items—a gift of movable property does not lend itself to appropriation because there is no payment of money involved in the transaction. That is why I am retaining the wording as it is at present.

Amendment moved by Mr. J. I. de Villiers negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. C. A. van Coller negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on page 440 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 12, to omit “profits” and to substitute “total earnings”;
2. (2) on page 15, in line 17, to omit “reasonable reserves,”

Since the hon. the Minister has pointed out that this debate has also taken place in the Other Place, I just want to say that these amendments were also moved there. On that occasion, the hon. the Minister also replied to these two matters, and I want to say that the replies that were given by the hon. the Minister were totally unsatisfactory. They are not acceptable. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept those replies given by the hon. the Minister. It is for that reason that we are again moving these amendments. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will, on this occasion, come forward with a more satisfactory reply. As I have already pointed out, his replies on that occasion were certainly not satisfactory. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that he is altering section 2(2) of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act which at the moment reads as follows—

This section relates to the payment of a subsidy—

That is how it reads at present. The hon. the Minister now suggests that we should accept quite a different provision. If you look at the hon. the Minister’s explanation in the Other Place, it makes you no wiser at all. One cannot understand why the word “profits” should be used instead of “total earnings” and one cannot understand why the words “reasonable reserves” should be included. From the explanation given by the hon. the Minister, it appears that what he really wants, he is already doing. So, why change the existing law? We on this side cannot understand it. In addition to the Items listed in section 2(2) of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act, to which I have referred, the hon. the Minister wants to include “reasonable reserves” and “the provision of new fixed assets”. Those are two items which are additional to the items referred to in section 2(2) of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act.

The hon. the Minister also said that he must have the word “profits” included here. In his reply to this point in the Other Place he said that it was not really a profit and that it was just another way of saying “total earnings”. Why then must he have the word “profits” if he is satisfied with “total earnings”? For heaven’s sake, Mr. Chairman, let us stick to the words “total earnings”. And, Sir, if he does not really want “reasonable reserves”, let us stick to “surplus”. There has been a surplus on this account from time to time. The hon. the Minister says there is no need to change this, although in the balance sheet of the Post Office last year an item of R19 million appeared under the heading “reserves”. He said there is no need to change it, but in the same breath he says that the Auditor-General said: “Look, Mr. Minister; What is this item “reserves” doing in your balance sheet? You have no right to put reserves in your balance sheet. Show me how you can do it in terms of the law.” That is why the hon. the Minister is introducing this amendment. He wants this amendment because he wants to keep the balance sheet in the same position as it is now. All he should do is to delete the word “reserves” in his balance sheet and to substitute the word “surplus”. That will be the end of it. What is happening here, as I said during the Second Reading debate, is that the hon. the Minister is introducing two new sets of words, namely “profits” and “reasonable reserves”. By doing so, he is introducing a completely new concept in respect of the Post Office. The hon. the Minister says he is not doing so, but I say he is. He is on the road to making the Post Office a public corporation, and this is the surest way of doing it. He is doing so, firstly, by introducing a profit motive, and secondly, by introducing a requirement that there must be reserves. Now, Sir, the Minister must get this straight. When he replies to the debate on this clause, we on this side of the House want good and sufficient reasons for the changes in terminology which he proposes. If he does not give us good and sufficient reason, we are going to vote against this clause, because we do not believe that there is any reason that the Minister can advance which will satisfy us.

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

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is an identical amendment to one moved in the Senate, which was not accepted by the hon. the Minister in that House. My attitude is that if this House cannot differ in its decisions from the decisions taken by the Senate, then I can see no reason why we must continue to have a bicameral system of government. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have moved affects the new section 12G, which seeks to introduce two provisions which I consider to be in direct conflict with the established practice for budgetary control of operations or organizations whose finances are subject to direct parliamentary control. That includes all State departments, the Railways, and up to now it includes the Post Office.

The first of these two new provisions which are in conflict with established practice is that money appropriated for one financial year, and unspent during that financial year, may now be carried over into the next financial year. This is a practice which is specifically prohibited, as far as State departments are concerned, by the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975. Up to now it has been prohibited as far as the Post Office and the Railways are concerned, by the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1956. It is a practice which is allowed in respect of certain State corporations such as the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, the South African Bureau of Standards and the CSIR, but these are corporations which do not come directly under Parliament as far as financial control is concerned. But even then I regard the practice of allowing them to retain unspent balances and to spend them in the next financial year as a very doubtful practice. I think that there are very good reasons why this practice is prohibited where Parliament exercises direct control over operations. You cannot exercise that proper control unless you have control over appropriations and expenditures as far as the specific purposes of those appropriations and expenditures are concerned and as far as the periods for which those appropriations have been approved are concerned. If money is to be allowed to be spent over a longer period than the period for which it is appropriated, then that means tolerating overestimating, which can only lead to unhealthy and slack practices. I believe that a feature of well-run businesses, that separates them from less well-run businesses, is that they maintain a very tight control over expenditure and insist on tight, accurate and careful budgeting. The Select Committee on Public Accounts takes a very, very critical view, as far as Government Departments are concerned, when they are responsible for over-budgeting. The second new principle introduced by this clause is that which allows the Post Office to spend money in a new financial year which has not yet been appropriated for that financial year. It allows expenditure to go on in a new financial year for the first two months of that financial year, although I see the hon. the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper to reduce that period of two months to one month.

I interpret the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendment as being that he has some doubt about the wisdom of the two-month period. However, reducing the period from two months to one month does not make black into white. It will still be black, because it introduces a completely new practice in an organization the finances of which are controlled, whether directly or indirectly, by Parliament. It opens a loophole which makes an absolute farce of parliamentary control over finances. If control is to be effective over finances, it has to be complete control and not partial control. This is introducing partial control. I see no reason whatsoever why expenditure in a new year, if it is not already covered by the Appropriation Bill for that year, should not be covered by a Part Appropriation Bill so that expenditure does not take place until it has had parliamentary approval. This is a principle we on this side of the House just cannot support. By not supporting it, it does not mean that we do not have the utmost faith in the management of the Post Office. In fact, we do. What we do say is that, if this clause is allowed to go through, one is abrogating one of the main functions of Parliament, and that is the control of public finances.

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

I join my colleagues in saying that I am surprised and that I regret that the hon. the Minister saw fit to tell us of the introduction of this Bill in the Other Place in such great length and to try to suggest that everything said there had been motivated by the hon. member for Wynberg. This may be so, because we work as a group. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it surely is the right also of hon. members of this House to express their opinions. Surely this is what it is all about. This is what Parliament is here for. I respectfully suggest therefore that his remarks were not in keeping with the better thinking of Parliament. We are not here to be ridden over rough-shod.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

Thank you, Sir, I will. As I see it, the very essence of the Bill is to ensure that the Post Office is run on sound and business-like lines and that it subscribes to the better aspects of accepted business principles.

In the running of any normal business undertaking, if one were to ask for a period of four months to elapse before the close of the relevant financial year for the preparation of the balance sheet for presentation to one’s auditors, then I should venture to suggest that one may as well shut up shop. To ask for four months before one is able to prepare one’s final set of accounts, is to court disaster. If it is the hon. the Minister’s intention, by medium of this Bill, to get the Post Office to run on a business-like basis, then I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider two months as being a limit, the extreme limit, to which he should go before presentation of his balance sheet to the Auditor-General for audit and approval.

What is the limit in the case of companies?

It is not a question of what the limit in the case of companies is. It is a matter of what the accepted limit is amongst business houses. If one is running this as a business, it must be run as a business. If one wants to run it as a business, one must run it as a business of which one is the director. If I were a director of this business I would want the answers and I would want them soon. And to this end, and particularly as we are living in an era of highly inflationary times, I suggest that this is a waste of money. It is a waste of the country’s money to allow this period to just go happily on for four months. I think the hon. the Minister would do well to consider my amendment. I have said that the limit should be two months. However, let us be accommodating and let us say that a period of no longer than three months should elapse before the relevant set of accounts is prepared and submitted to the Auditor-General. Otherwise I submit that we are doing the country a great disservice.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with clause 5 and with the various amendments which have been moved by members of the Official Opposition. The matter we are dealing with relates to good management. My approach to this matter is that the Post Office is a very large and intricate organization, rendering as it does a large range of very significant services. One must accept a number of things. One of the things one must accept is that the top management of the Post Office consists of highly qualified, competent and dedicated people. The second thing one must accept is that if one wants the Post Office to operate efficiently, it must be run on modem business lines. Thirdly, one must accept that if one wants the management of the Post Office to perform satisfactorily and efficiently, they must be given modem management tools. One must also be prepared to entrust to them modem management powers.

If the purpose of the amendment is to bind the managers of the Post Office to such an extent that they do not have sufficient management flexibility, then one cannot at the same time expect of them efficient management of the organization they are running. My attitude therefore is different. My attitude is one of acceptance of the competence of the management of the Post Office and of the dimensions of their job. I accept that, if I want them to run the Post Office efficiently as a modem business organization, then I must give them modem business management tools. I accept that this will lead to increased efficiency, to better services and to the control of charges rates and fees.

However, I believe there is one important aspect. Having given these powers and a management tools to the Post Office, the managers must be held accountable for all their actions by way of reports to Parliament. We must have the right to scrutinize the actions of the Post Office in terms of the powers given to them. I think that this is very important, and for that reason I am opposed to a number of the amendments of the Official Opposition because these amendments would not give the Post Office management the flexibility which they need to ran the Post Office on modern business lines.

I should now like to deal with the first amendment which reads—

I believe that it may be a matter of semantics. What the official Opposition does not want, is that the total income of the Post Office should exceed its total expenditure.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.