Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to hon. members’ amendments to clause 5, I should first like to move my own amendment, as follows—

The reason why I am moving this amendment is because I undertook in the Other Place to change the period from two months to one month. After this proposed amendment is accepted, the clause will mean that there will be a fixed appropriation law as it were, an Act which will be in force for the duration of one calendar month at the beginning of the new financial year. In this connection I also want to refer to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member moved that subsections (1) and (2) be deleted. In other words, he is opposed to the fact that money which is voted in one financial year, should be spent in a new financial year, after the end of that year. Furthermore, he is also opposed to a fixed appropriation law being introduced for the duration of one month.

As far as the first point is concerned, I should like to point out that in the existing legislation, i.e. since the promulgation of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1956, authorization exists in the case of the Postal Service and Railways for amounts which are voted in one financial year, to be spent at the end of that financial year. The reason for this is obvious. Those two departments have to be managed like business concerns, and it is therefore necessary for them to be able to conclude their affairs in respect of every specific financial year so as to be able to give an account of their transactions in a proper manner.

As far as the second point of the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia is concerned—that he is opposed to the introduction of a fixed appropriation law for the duration of one month—I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that this principle is definitely not something new in this Parliament. This Parliament, accepted that principle as long ago as 1963 when it passed the Transkeian Constitution Act. I should also like to point out that the Post Office Appropriation Bill is one of the three appropriation laws which are submitted to this House every year. It is customary for the Post Office Appropriation Bill to be considered in the middle of March.

This means that only two weeks remain in which all arrangements have to be made in order to promulgate the legislation. Before the legislation has been promulgated, the Post Office is not authorized to spend money in the new financial year. This is the practical problem with which the Post Office is faced and this is also why, in view of the inhibiting factors which it experienced in the past, it has resorted to adding this provision to the Act. Accountability to Parliament has also been mentioned. I want to make it very clear that as in the past, Parliament will have every opportunity to subject every amount which is spent in this manner to close scrutiny and criticism. So there can be no question of Parliament being by-passed in respect of this matter. I changed this period from two months to one month because I wanted to meet the Opposition in the Other Place. The Opposition asked whether it would not be possible to consider a percentual limitation on that expenditure or to mention a specific amount which may not be exceeded. I felt that this would cause too great a hindrance, because one cannot foresee what one’s requirements will be in the first month of the financial year. Therefore I agreed to reduce the period from two months to one month and this is what is being brought about by my amendment.

In respect of the hon. member for Wynberg’s amendment, his big question was: Why must the existing Act be changed? I have already indicated during my reply to the Second Reading debate what actually lies at the root of this change. I want to emphasize that there is no change of policy at all on the part of the Post Office. The idea which the hon. member for Wynberg raised, i.e. that the Post Office is on the way to becoming a State corporation, is completely unfounded because there is no change of policy as far as the affairs of the Post Office are concerned. Indeed, I said that the Post Office will be able to continue to manage its affairs, even if we did not accept this legislation. It is obvious that the Post Office will then be dealing with all the obstacles and problems, a few of which I have already mentioned during the course of the discussion. The object of this change is merely to obtain greater clarity in this connection. The proposed amendment of adding assets here, in order to obtain a reasonable income, is calculated to ensure that there will be less reason for uncertainty in interpretation. The clause places the limitation directly on profits and it also re-arranges the provisions in greater conformity with accepted accounting practices by, firstly, specifying the obligations which are taken into consideration before arriving at the profit figure is determined, and then indicating the expenditure for which the profit may be applied. Section 2(2) of the Post Office Readjustment Act, by implication allows the Post Office to keep reserves. This is the interpretation which has been given to this since 1968. It is necessary for the Post Office, which is managed on business lines, to be able to keep reserves. It needs these for unforeseen fluctuations in its affairs and also, since it operates a large savings bank, for liquidity. The law adviser pointed out that should there be any doubt about this matter—and the Auditor-General has agreed with him—it would be better to include it specifically in the Act. This is consequently what is being done here.

There is no intention at all here of increasing tariffs injudiciously in order to make profits to the detriment of the public. The control exercised by Parliament will be effective enough to prevent this. I think that the hon. member for Wynberg has lost sight of the fact that the reserves which are indicated in the statements do in fact remain part of the business of the Post Office.

The hon. member must take into consideration that before 1968 such reserves had to return to the Exchequer, as is also the case with all other Government departments. However, ever since the finances of the Post Office became an independent matter, that money has remained in the Post Office accounts and the reserves must flow back to the Post Office business.

I come next to the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlanga. He moved that three instead of four months should elapse before the final statements and accounts are presented. I just want to point out that for the other Government departments that fall under the Exchequer, the rule “date of payment, date of charge” applies. In the case of the Post Office, however, it is different. In the case of the Post Office money which is voted in a specific year, must be accounted for against that year, even if it is spent after the end of the specific financial year. The rule “date of payment, date of charge” does not apply in the case of the Post Office. There are good reasons for this. If one wants a sound image of the finances of the Post Office, one must ensure that the Post Office reports on the transactions for which money was appropriated during a specific financial year when it draws up its final statement and accounts. When the Post Office has many foreign transactions, as well as many accounts, hon. members will understand that it takes time to receive the invoices and accounts in time. Experience has taught us that a deferment of three months is not sufficient.

What is the present arrangement with the Auditor-General? It amounts to the books of the Post Office having to be kept open until the end of May. Therefore only one month remains, i.e. June, in which to draw up the final accounts and prepare the statements for submission to the Auditor-General. The extent of the activities of the Post Office being what it is, experience has taught that this is insufficient time. The four months instead of three months which we are now proposing will enable us to keep the books open at least until halfway through June. This will therefore give us a longer time to draw up the financial statements for the Auditor-General.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I have to inform the hon. the Minister that the amendment which he moved, is not acceptable to us. It is a watering down of the amendment which the hon. member for Constantia moved, and we therefore content ourselves with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia. After the hon. the Minister had delivered his reply to the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia, it was quite clear to us that it is not really necessary to insert the two new subsections in the legislation and that there is indeed enough room for movement, as the hon. the Minister informed us.

We accept that it may indeed cause a little difficulty, that problems may arise in respect of reporting and accountability in connection with the money which is spent. We can understand all this. But these are exceptional cases, and we on this side of the House do not mind there being exceptional cases where money intended for a certain year, is spent in the following year. There may be such cases. The hon. the Minister still has the opportunity to explain to us why this happened, and I am sure that he will be able to satisfy the Auditor-General. We on this side of the House therefore feel that the two subsections which are now being inserted, are quite unnecessary.

I now come to the amendments which I moved. The hon. the Minister said that there is no change of policy. However, I am afraid that we cannot agree with the hon. the Minister. In our opinion there is indeed a change of policy. The change of policy is that at this stage the Post Office is not being put in a position to make a profit. What the hon. the Minister says, is that it is not necessary to return the surplus. Very well. If there is a surplus and it is not necessary to return it, an account may still be given of the surplus and an explanation given of why there is in fact a surplus. If the legislation is accepted as the hon. the Minister suggests, it will not be necessary to explain why there is a surplus and the Minister will be placed in a position to budget for a surplus which is not a surplus. What he will then be doing, is to budget for a profit and this profit will then be used as a reserve. In other words, that reserve will then appear in the books of the Post Office as a reserve and will not be taken into account for the next year’s spending. When estimates are drawn up again, in the following year, the reserve will not then be taken into consideration.

†Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me that this is definitely a change in policy, and that is why I suggested in the Second Reading that the hon. the Minister should have used this opportunity to explain why he wanted this change of policy. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, he has not explained in a satisfactory manner why he requires this change in policy. Unless he can explain it satisfactorily, we on this side of the House are not prepared to accept his amendment in regard to profits and reserves. We believe that if the hon. the Minister had come to us and said that this reserve was in fact a rates stabilization fund, we could have seen some sense in it. But it is not going to be a rates stabilization fund. It is not going to be taken into account in further budgetary procedures. When the budget has been closed for a particular year, that amount is going to be placed in reserve, and as far as this Parliament is concerned we will never ever budget about that reserve again. It will be there for all time. What is so strange is that the Post Office has a capital of R199 million left to it by the Treasury. If the hon. the Minister came to us and said to wipe out the amount of the capital debt, he could probably make out a case for it, and if he made out a satisfactory case we on this side of the House would probably have accepted it. But he is not going to do that. He has the capital which he borrowed from the central Government and on which he is paying 6% interest, and at the same time he is now forming reserves to use for some nebulous purpose. We on this side of the House believe that the purpose he is going to use it for is as extra capital expenditure. It will be a capital reserve. This is the way he will circumvent the provisions which are now applicable in regard to budgeting for capital needs in the Post Office, viz. that not more than 50% of revenue should be applied towards capital. He will get round those provisions by putting the additional reserves into capital as well, and it may quite easily be that the total amount of capital for which he then budgets and which will come out of revenue and not out of capital funds, will be far in excess of the 50% which has been the sort of norm up to now. For those reasons we cannot accept the Minister’s amendments, nor are we prepared to yield in regard to these amendments we have moved.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned I was presenting the reasons why my party adopts this standpoint against the amendments which were presented by the official Opposition and why we will support the amendments of the hon. the Minister. Our point of departure is that the Post Office is a very large and complex organization and while Parliament requires the Post Office to provide the public with a service and to function effectively and purposefully, it is also the duty of Parliament to show confidence in the management of the Post Office and to be prepared to provide the Post Office with the necessary managerial means in order to achieve the required level of efficiency. Therefore we are opposed to the amendments moved by the official Opposition, because we see them as an attempt to hamstring the management of the Post Office in the execution of their duties. The official Opposition wants two things of the Post Office. Firstly they want the Post Office to operate efficiently and secondly, they are not prepared to trust the management of the Post Office with the normal powers which the management of an organization ‘ of that magnitude must have at its disposal. Therefore we are going to stick to our guns and support the hon. the Minister against the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I trust that the management of the Post Office will consequently be able to carry out its duties more effectively and as a result be able to provide the public of South Africa with a better service.

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. J. I. de Villiers,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Boraine, A. L.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Villiers, R. M.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Eglin, C. W.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pitman, S. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schwarz, H. H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—31: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. J. I. de Villiers negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. D. D. Baxter negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. B. W. B. Page negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

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

I just want to indicate that I undertook to move these amendments in the Other Place in order to make the principle very clear that interest will be paid on interest and that the depositor will not be penalized in respect of interest as a result of any limit which may be placed upon the total amount which may be deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

What I now have to say I am saying to all hon. members in this House, because we are not all that old, but neither are we all that young. Since I was a child—in fact, for as long as I can remember—we were enjoined to save in the Post Office Savings Bank. Amongst other things, we were told to see to it that our accounts were never less than one shilling, or 10 cents in modern parlance. That was, however, some 50 years ago when a shilling was worth a shilling, which is much more than what 10 cents is worth today.

Hon. members are well aware of the fact that the Post Office Savings Bank is the bank of the poor man. This means it is the bank of the child, the housewife, the old age pensioner, the widow, not to forget the non-Whites. The Bantu, in particular, is loyal to the Post Office Savings Bank. To him the bank is an important source of saving. The same applies to Coloureds and Indians. All those people have great faith in the Post Office Savings Bank.

I therefore urge the hon. the Minister to be realistic in this matter and to face up to the fact that depreciation has seriously eroded the value of money. Consequently the vast majority of people, whether they be White, Black or Brown or whether they be children or adults, or whether they be white-collar workers or labourers, are receiving wages, pensions or pocket money far in excess of what their counterparts received in the days when we were young. As I have said, that was some 50 years ago. In fact, if you give 10 cents to a person today, it is tantamount to an insult.

Apart from this, one has to consider the administrative work and expenditure entailed in keeping open an account of 10 cents. The paper work and the computerization involved costs more than 10 cents. In fact, to trace an investor who only has 10 cents in his account costs more than 10 cents. This makes the whole business uneconomical and expensive. I think it makes of the Post Office Savings Bank a farce, something which cannot be tolerated in this day and age.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member spoke against his own argument. I could not find any better argument for retaining the amount of ten cents than the one which the hon. member presented for deleting it.

But the hon. member did not mean it in this way.

It is precisely the standpoint of the Post Office that the Post Office Savings Bank is the savings bank of the small man, the poor man. Indeed, the hon. member also pointed out that it is schoolchildren, non-Whites and social pensioners in particular who make use of the facilities of the Post Office Savings Bank. If we make the minimum deposit R1, it means that we are depriving the depositor of 90 cents which they could have used if they needed to do so. We prefer to keep the amount at 10 cents. It is true, as the hon. member pointed out, that as far as the relative value of money is concerned, 10 cents today is actually an archaic concept. However, we prefer to keep the account, because if the account stays open, it will later bring in business again. If we force an investor to keep a minimum of R1 in his account, he may perhaps, if he needs the money, be tempted to draw the whole amount and close his account.

I therefore prefer not to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications agreed to.

Amendment moved by Brig. C. C. von Keyserlingk negatived.

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, the effect of this Post Office Amendment Bill, which has just gone through the Committee Stage, is that the House has accepted certain principles. This first principle is, I believe, that the fees, rates and charges are to be such that they will provide revenue which is more than what is required for the operation of the Post Office. The second principle we have accepted is that the utilization of money need not be appropriated by Parliament if required by the Post Office. I believe that, in accepting these principles, we have moved away from the concept of the Post Office being a department of State. We are moving towards the position where the administration of the Post Office is regarded as that of a State corporation. The hon. the Minister shakes his head to indicate that this is not so, but this is in fact the way in which one starts negotiating for this type of organization.

If the hon. the Minister considers the matter quietly during the recess, I am sure that he will come to the conclusion that that is in fact what has happened. He will find that the Post Office is no longer a department of State, as it was originally envisaged to be, and that it has now been launched in the direction of a State corporation. I say that because the Post Office will never again show a surplus. In the books or the budgeting of the Post Office we will never again find a surplus. Any amounts over and above that required for the total expenditure of the Post Office, in other words, the difference between revenue and expenditure, will be transferred to a reserve fund, and no surplus will be surrendered as is the case in other Government departments. As I said in the Committee Stage a few moments ago, the Post Office is not going to be accountable to Parliament for this reserve. This reserve is going to be tucked away and we on this side of the House believe that this reserve is going to be used for purposes other than those for which surpluses are normally used.

Budgeting in future is going to be something of an academic exercise as far as the Post Office is concerned. The reason for that is that the Minister will decide what additions to reserves he will require, and he will produce the budget accordingly. In other words, he will decide at the beginning of a year that he requires a reserve of, say, R20 million or R30 million, and when he budgets he will take into account the reserve which he wants at the end. In fact, there will no longer be strict budgeting, according to the requirements of the Post Office or the service which it is supposed to give; the budgeting will really be of quite an academic nature. There is also another point. Whenever the Post Office budget is presented to us in future, the expenditure side will never be a reflection of the true expenditure. It will always show an amount built in for the reserve, an amount which will be regarded as part and parcel of the expenditure of the Post Office. Consequently there will not be a true reflection of the actual expenditure of the Post Office, but there will be a reflection of what is required by the Post Office, plus what the hon. the Minister considers to be a reasonable amount for the reserves.

We have already asked the hon. the Minister, at great length and on several occasions, what he intends doing with this reserve. He has not really given us a satisfactory explanation yet. The most we have from him is that he believes he wants this reserve as a sort of contingency reserve, in case it is required. He has also intimated that he has to be fairly liquid, because he has now taken over the Post Office Savings Bank and all the other savings accounts that go with it. However, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is going to keep this reserve in liquid form. Far from it! I believe it is all going to be invested in capital goods. If the hon. the Minister were to tell us that this reserve was going to be a rates equalization fund—that in the years of plenty he was going to save for the years when there would not be sufficient money to pay for the services—I believe he would probably find some support from this side of the House for such a suggestion. However, he does not tell us that. Therefore we believe that this is a pure and simple capital reserve.

This capital reserve is going to have the effect that, when he budgets for his expenditure, he is going to budget accordingly for revenue, and his revenue is going to be loaded in such a way that a far greater part of it will actually end up being used for capital purposes. In other words, the hon. the Minister will then be able to produce this sort of subterfuge. Whom does the hon. the Minister believe he is going to bluff by this subterfuge? No one, because we all know beforehand that he is in fact employing a subterfuge. Therefore I do not really know what the object of this exercise is going to be.

We have already discussed the question why the hon. the Minister feels he should do this at all, and I believe that my original suggestion, viz. that he was having difficulty with the Auditor-General, is probably the correct one. The hon. the Minister does not like to give explanations all the time, and this is an easy way out. Once he has his reserves, he can do what he likes with any surplus; he can put it into the reserve fund and the Auditor-General will be satisfied. The hon. the Minister will not have to give any explanations about it afterwards.

Then, of course, there is the question of appropriations for one year being utilized in a following year without appropriation. We have already stated that we believe this is a very bad principle. The hon. the Minister has said that it does happen already. We know it happens already, but where it happens now, it happens for a good and sufficient reason. The hon. the Minister must thus have a good and sufficient reason to satisfy the Auditor-General. If he does not satisfy the Auditor-General, the matter is reported to Parliament. That is the position at present. I do agree with the hon. the Minister that these things do happen. However, there are good and sufficient reasons therefor, reasons which satisfy the Auditor-General, and if they satisfy the Auditor-General, they satisfy Parliament. But that is not going to be the position in future. In future the hon. the Minister is actually going to spend these moneys without having to give an explanation to the Auditor-General in regard to the expenditure of moneys appropriated the previous year during the ensuing year.

He will also not have to give an explanation either to Parliament or the the Auditor-General about moneys spent before the appropriation. He is going to spend money which he may require. The hon. the Minister tells us that the books of the Post Office are already kept open until the end of May, despite the fact that the year ends on 31 March. He now also wants to be able to spend money which is not appropriated, before the appropriation takes place. Therefore he wants the best of both worlds, because in addition to that he does not want to have to account to Parliament nor to the Auditor-General for the money which is to be spent either. I believe that in the result accounting by the hon. the Minister to Parliament in respect of his department is going to be quite superficial in future. We shall have to be at great pains to find out exactly what has taken place. The hon. the Minister is making it easy for himself not having to account with any degree of meticulousness to Parliament and is going to be able to say: “Well, the Auditor-General is perfectly happy with what I am doing, and therefore you must be happy too.” I think we in the House must know that this is what we are doing in enacting this Bill and when the situation arises we should be in a position to meet it. I do not know how we are going to meet it. I think we are going to be in great difficulty to do so. Yet we must try to devise some means of meeting it in future.

The point does occur that if the hon. the Minister is inefficient and incompetent in his administration, this Bill will provide him with the tools to cover up such inefficiency and incompetence. The word “tools” is interesting because it was used by the hon. member for Bryanston when he said that we must give the hon. the Minister the “tools” to run the Post Office. I want to assure the hon. member for Bryanston and his party that what in fact we are doing, is to give the hon. the Minister the tools to cover up inefficiency and incompetence. If the hon. member for Bryanston agrees with those sort of tools, we know exactly where his party stands.

Finally, there is the principle of the postal service which is being operated as a fundamental service by the Government to the people. The hon. the Minister has said nothing about this at all. He is more interested in the fact that the Post Office should be run as a business. He said so repeatedly. However, he said nothing about this fundamental service which the Post Office must provide for the people of South Africa. We on this side of the House believe that it is the most important principle of the postal service. It is the principle we should like to see enshrined in all postal service legislation. We on this side of the House feel that this principle is being discarded and abandoned by this Bill, and we feel very sad about it. At the same time, I think everyone should realize that the Post Office is a monopoly and as a monopoly and as a result of this Bill, it will now be in a position to provide only such services as are profitable and to discontinue those which are not profitable. We have heard of the closing of 25 post offices during the past 18 months. This is a clear indication of the direction in which the hon. the Minister is moving. For these reasons we shall not be able to support the Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg briefly that it is far better to sit there and look like a fool instead of rising and removing any doubts on that score. I cannot take the hon. member amiss for saying things like this in connection with finance. Finance is far beyond his ability. I think the hon. member for Bryanston replied to him very thoroughly and fully as befits a man of finance. I wonder whether the Opposition should not find another speaker to speak on finance.

This Post Office legislation provides that the surplus be applied for capital commodities and we will make it known to South Africa and the voters that the official Opposition objects to the Post Office using money in order to create a better, more effective postal service.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Wynberg made use of the fact that the Second Reading debate took place quite some time ago. He did so to such an extent that he repeated the arguments today which he used in his Second Reading speech. I do not think the hon. member raised any new points to which I need furnish a detailed reply. I just want to tell him that he need not fear that Parliament will be by-passed or that the control which Parliament had in the past, will now be diminished as a result of the passing of this legislation.

The hon. member is a member of the Select Committee on the Post Office. There he will have an opportunity to put the questions which he asked now and receive a reply to them. The hon. member keeps on asking what I do with the reserves. At the discussion of the Post Office appropriation and at the discussions of the statements and reports by the Select Committee, he will see that the reserves will be available for financing the services of the Post Office. I want to tell the hon. member once again what I said previously, viz. that when he criticizes, he must allow himself to be led by the guiding principles laid down by the Franzsen Commission, namely that the activities of the Post Office ought to be financed by 50% with moneys which the Post Office may generate itself and 50% by means of loans. If the ratio is exceeded in the sense that the money which the Post Office contributes itself exceeds 50%, exceeds 50% alarmingly, then only does he come to the problems which he raised here today. I really do not think it is a case of “reserves to be tucked away”, as the hon. member said. It is not the case that this Act places the Post Office on the road to becoming a State corporation. I have a great deal more understanding for the standpoint put by the PRP, namely that we must create measures which will enable the Post Office to provide the service which the public expects it to provide, and which will make it possible for the Post Office to give an account of its stewardship.

The hon. member also said that I said nothing about the postal services. During my Second Reading speech I said that postal services in all countries of the world are being run at a loss. Because it is an essential service which must be provided, we will nevertheless continue to operate, whether at a loss or not. The hon. member does not have to be unnecessarily concerned about this. When changes and adjustments take place in respect of the service which is provided, it is the hon. member’s privilege to criticize it in this house and to put questions about it. Therefore I say that I do not consider it necessary to reply to the specific points which were raised by the hon. member.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Boraine, A. L.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Pitman, S. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schwarz, H. H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are aware that the railway line constructed by Iscor between Sishen and Saldanha Bay will be a multi-purpose line. As traffic other than that of that corporation will be conveyed over the line, it is foreseen that the harbour at Saldanha Bay will soon develop into a commercial harbour. Since the S.A. Railways and Harbours is responsible for the operation of the commercial harbours in the Republic and South West Africa, the Government has given its consent to the South African Railway Administration being entrusted with the control and the operation of Saldanha Bay Harbour. The Minister of Economic Affairs has already introduced amending legislation to enable measures being taken to transfer control of the harbour to the S.A. Railways. The purpose of this Bill is merely to empower the Railway Administration to acquire and equip the harbour.

The various aspects connected with the transfer of the control and operation of the harbour were discussed and agreed upon by the parties concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, the Saldanha Bay Harbour Acquisition and Equipment Bill, should really be called the “I Told You so” Bill. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs here. When the original construction Bill for Saldanha Bay harbour was before this House, the then Minister of Transport expressed some very strong opinions regarding the ability of Iscor to build a harbour. We on this side of the House said that the Railways were the people who had a harbour organization, who had the experience and the knowledge, as well as the know-how and the personnel to control such a project. We remember, too, the complete confidence with which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said: “This is the answer; we will show you what Iscor and private enterprise can do.” They had a harbour adviser, an expert from overseas. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport, who has now had the baby dumped into his lap, just what sort of deformed baby he is taking over. We are being asked to authorize the Railways, who are already running at a deficit, to take over this harbour. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he is taking over trouble, and he ought to tell this House just what troubles he is asking us to authorize the Railways to accept, because these, by this transfer, are going to be hidden.

I suggest that the hon. the Minister is taking over a scheme where the breakwater is simply washed away with every heavy sea, where the whole system of the breakwater does not work. I suggest that he is taking over the construction of a harbour where the foundation investigations into the soil content were faulty and where the whole dredging process turned out to require two to three times as much work and effort and even new dredgers, but is still not under control. I suggest that he is taking over information and plans which he will have to modify before this harbour is operating properly. I think that he ought to tell this House just what it is going to cost the Railways. How much the Railway Administration is going to have to spend to complete the construction of this harbour, viz. in addition to what Iscor has already spent? We can then get a picture of what the final costs are likely to be. At what figure will it stand on the books of the Railways? What proportion of Iscor’s expenditure is the Railways going to take over? The Minister simply says this is an empowering Bill, that the Railways are now taking over the baby. But if you are taking over a baby which you know is deformed before you start, then the hon. the Minister ought to tell us what the treatment is going to cost, what operations he is going to have to carry out, what he is going to have to put right, what he is going to spend and what the rail user of South Africa is going to have to spend to put right a situation which should never have gone wrong in the first place. Why did the Railways not do this in the first place?

No, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to let this matter pass with facile explanation that this is a simple empowering Bill. We want to know from the hon. the Minister a little more of the detail of what he has got to do before he has an operating harbour, an operating harbour which can be maintained at an economic price. We want to know what he has done, what is going to be done about the tide problems and the range problems. He has to pay attention to these because otherwise we will never have a harbour. It has to be put right, and we want to know what it is going to cost the taxpayer because two Government departments could not decide between themselves and because a Cabinet Minister, against the advice of the experts, forced the decision that the Department of Economic Affairs would control it. A Cabinet majority overruled the Minister of Transport and the advisers who knew something about this and went ahead against all expert advice. Now we are paying the price for it and we want to know what that price is going to be. Obviously we shall support the measure because we want to see Saldanha harbour built. It is not going to be built if things go on as they are. Therefore we shall support it but we want to know the cost to the railway user.

Mr. Speaker, we too will support this Bill, but we also have questions that we would like to ask the hon. the Minister. We believe that the situation with regard to this harbour is still unclear. It appears that we are faced with a situation where Iscor is apparently going to retain overall control of the harbour. However, it needs somebody with experience to control the workings of the harbour. This Bill is an enabling measure; the words used are “acquire and equip”. It says nothing about the actual running of the harbour. It appears to us that Iscor is still going to be running the harbour, and this we on this side of the House regard as a totally unsatisfactory situation. When one talks about equipment, one is talking about various things that have already been done by Iscor. Iscor for example has ordered Voigt Schneider tugs which are going to operate in the harbour. We believe that through the good offices of the IDC we have entered into an agreement with Safmarine to provide crew for these tugs. Who exactly is going to operate these tugs? This is apparently going to be a harbour owned and equipped by the Railways Administration and run by Iscor. Even the tugs are going to be Iscor tugs. There is also another matter which I would like to mention. I think the Department of Economic Affairs was responsible for the ordering from France of a 22 knot pilot tender. Who is going to run this pilot tender? Are the crews of these tugs going to be Railways personnel or are they going to be Iscor personnel? I think the situation is still totally unclear when it comes to the exact relationship between Iscor and the Railways in this instance. It seems to us a most unsatisfactory situation that the Railways should own a harbour, but not run it. I wonder what the harbour personnel staff associations, for example, feel about this. Do they think it is a good idea? I realize that we are faced with problems. There has been terrific resistance to giving full control to the Railways Administration because the Railways costing and tariffs would quite possibly be so expensive that the ore price would rise to an uneconomic level. I think we are playing around here with a device which will enable Iscor to do things as cheaply as they apparently are able to do while the experts, the Railways Administration, are being kept out of the actual running of the harbour because it would be too expensive to run the harbour under those circumstances. There are many problems involved in this.

We support the Bill because we believe—and have believed all along—that this harbour should fall under the control of the Railways Administration. It seems to us most unsatisfactory, however, that the overall running of the harbour will be in the hands of Iscor, possibly advised by the Railways. We would, however, like to know from the hon. the Minister exactly what the situation is. I point out again that the words he uses in the Bill are “acquire” and “equip”. There is no mention, however, of the running of the enterprise. I think this is an exclusion that he must explain.

Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the hon. member for Durban Point was wrong again, or, let me rather say, he was not quite right. Only a few of the statements he made here were correct and hit the nail on the head. The hon. member referred to this Bill as the “I-told-you-so Bill”. However, I want to remind him that there has never been an argument about operating a general commercial harbour at Saldanha Bay. This is the first time that the operation of a commercial harbour at Saldanha Bay has come up for discussion in Parliament. What was indeed the subject of an argument at the time, was the building of the railway line and the building of the loading installation for the purposes of the railway line as a single-purpose railway line for the conveyance of iron. This was all that was at issue. This harbour was at all times under the control of the Department of Sea Fisheries of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Now, as a result of the multi-purpose nature of the railway line, the conclusion has quite correctly been reached that the need to build a commercial harbour will arise, but not immediately—only in due course as the need grows. That is why it is now an issue that the control of that harbour should be transferred from the Department of Industries to the Railways, so that the Railways will be able to expand and equip it as a commercial harbour. Even at that time, when the railway line was still a single-purpose railway line, there were already negotiations between Iscor, the Railways and the various departments as to where the commercial harbour should be developed, should the need for it arise in time, in which case the Railways would then come into the picture. Consequently it is totally incorrect to allege that what is happening now was predicted in advance. However, I can say what is in fact going to happen there, and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, and myself have to a great extent reached finality on this score. When it was submitted that the harbour should be transferred to the South African Railways, I said, with reference to Iscor’s facilities for transporting iron ore that I wanted it put very clearly that there should not be divided control of the harbour. If the control of the harbour had to fall under the jurisidiction of the S.A. Railways, the total control of the harbour would have to fall under the jurisidiction of the Railways. I asked the General Manager of the S.A. Railways to contact the General Manager of Iscor in order to discuss the state of affairs with respect to the facilities for loading iron ore. We are quite satisfied that the control of this harbour will be entirely in the hands of the Railways, just as the control of other harbours is also in the hands of the Railways.

The fact that Iscor has loading facilities in the Saldanha Bay harbour—these are facilities which Iscor built at its own expense—which it operates for its own gain, is neither a new principle, nor something foreign to the management of South African harbours. A few weeks ago I opened a Rennies terminus in Durban Harbour. That terminus was built at a cost of more than R9 million on land which the S.A. Railways made available to Rennies within the harbour area, in order to construct that large complex there. It is a complex which makes provision for the loading of various products such as grain and ore. The case in Durban Harbour is a typical example, comparable with what will happen at the Saldanha Bay harbour from now on. As a matter of fact, in Durban harbour there are also loading facilities belonging to Amalgamated Manganese, facilities which are run by that company. Although this is the case, the S.A. Railways still has full control over the harbour and the fact that the two abovementioned instances of facilities having been constructed in the harbour by private bodies, does not mean that the Railways has given up its power. The same will happen in the case of Saldanha Bay harbour. Iscor built the facilities there and just as Rennies manages its facilities in the Durban harbour, Iscor will manage its facilities in the Saldanha Bay harbour until such time as other measures are adopted. Perhaps other measures may be taken at a later stage.

If the need arises for a general commercial harbour to be developed at Saldanha Bay, the Railways will continue to do the necessary work in order to equip the new harbour as a general commercial harbour. The hon. member wants me to say now how much this will cost. We are aware that when Iscor constructed its loading facilities, certain problems were experienced with respect to the topography of the region. Iscor was not previously aware of the problems in respect of the topography, but the fact that Iscor was not previously aware of this, does not mean, after all, that we should not continue with the development of the general commercial harbour when the need for one arises. The hon. member knows just as well as I that at this stage I am not able to tell him precisely what the harbour will cost. What is more: He knows it is not necessary for me to say so. As soon as a need arises for building a general commercial harbour, we shall decide where to begin in respect of the first quays’ etc. Money will be provided for all expenditure which will have to be incurred by way of items in the Brown Book. The hon. member will then have the opportunity to advance arguments for or against carrying out such work.

But what about the present obligations?

The present obligations are Iscor’s. Iscor has only built loading facilities there, and Iscor will continue to manage those loading facilities. Everything is being done for Iscor and at Iscor’s expense. If Iscor continues in this way and we build a general commercial harbour in the immediate vicinity, Iscor will still be able to continue to manage its loading facilities. This will be the position until such time as a different arrangement is made between Iscor and the S.A. Railways. There is therefore nothing strange about the legislation. Hon. members support the Bill and I really do not believe it is necessary to elaborate on it further.

What about the dredging and the breakwater?

It is obvious that if we decide to build quays for a general commercial harbour, we shall have to do the necessary dredging. Naturally, we are now more aware of the conditions under the sea than we were before. We must and will take this into account when the general commercial harbour is built. I do not believe that this is in any way an issue today. The development at Saldanha Bay is a good development. If a general commercial harbour is developed one day, it will be useful to have an additional commercial harbour on our west coast. However, I want to emphasize that a commercial harbour like this will only be developed when the need for it arises. We recently spent large amounts of money on the Table Bay harbour, and I do not foresee that the development of a general commercial harbour at Saldanha Bay will be necessary very soon. The multi-purpose nature of the railway line to Saldanha will of course hasten the day when we shall have to decide whether a general commercial harbour must be built. It is only to enable us to make a decision at that stage that this legislation is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. the Minister sits down, may I remind him that he has not yet answered my question regarding the ownership of the tugs. Who is going to operate the tugs and the pilots’ tender in the harbour?

The tugs have been ordered by Iscor, and those arrangements will be made between Iscor and the S.A. Railways in due course. At the moment the arrangement is still that Iscor will manage its loading facilities and that it will have to be properly equipped to be able to do so. However, if the circumstances change in future, we shall negotiate and decide whether the Railways will have to take over those tugs too or not. At this stage it is not yet really an issue.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister talks of “when the harbour is to be developed as a commercial harbour”, but this Bill before us is not aimed at dealing only with that. Clause 2(4) states specifically—

In other words, this refers to maintenance work on existing installations. I refer also to clause 2(3), which states that the powers conferred by this clause “shall include the power to construct and equip the entrance works …”. The entrance works are operating now. This subsection refers also to the “entrance channel and all navigational channels, turning basins, wharves, docks, basins, jetties, piers”. The last will be something for the future. It then goes on to refer to “flood control systems”, which must be dealt with now. In addition, the “tide control systems, signal stations, navigational aids and any other facilities or appurtenances” are all things which are operating now. In the Saldanha Bay Harbour Construction Act of 1973, “Minister” means the Minister of Economic Affairs, and “person in control of the harbour” means an officer of the Department of Industries designated by the Minister. In other words, the harbour will be controlled by the Minister of Economic Affairs.

This Bill does not amend that in any way. It states specifically to the contrary that Iscor will retain “all the powers and duties defined in the Saldanha Bay Harbour Construction Act, 1973”, and nowhere in this Bill do we amend the fact that the Minister concerned is the Minister of Economic Affairs or that the “person in control of the harbour” is an officer of the Department of Industries. The hon. the Minister is therefore not going to have control. He is only going to have the power to build the harbour and he is not going to control it, because this Bill does not change that definition. I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain just how this Jekyll and Hyde split personality is going to work, with Iscor owning tugs and lighters and the S.A. Railways being “in control”. Or, Mr. Speaker, is this going to remain under the control of the Department of Industries until such time as a commercial harbour is built? I see the Ministers of Transport and of Economic Affairs having a consultation about this. Perhaps now we will get a decision. Obviously this is not clear. The two departments involved have not sorted these things out, and they now have to improvise. I am sorry that we did not have a Committee Stage on this Bill, so that we could have found out more about this. It does seem, Mr. Speaker, as if we are being asked to give something of a blank cheque with this Bill, because they have not finalized all the details.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to come back to the question that I raised during Second Reading. The hon. the Minister has not yet made it clear exactly who is the final controlling authority of Saldanha Bay harbour. The fact that he has answered my question on tugs by saying Iscor is going to run the tugs, means that his comparison between that and, for example, the installation belonging to Rennies, which he opened the other day, is not really valid at all. It is not the same sort of thing at all. We are now in a situation in which the actual running of the total harbour, as far as I can see it, is going to be carried out by Iscor. However, it is still not clear exactly what the situation is with regard to the fishing harbour too. Is that still going to remain under the control of the Department of Commerce and Industry, or is the fishing harbour now also going to be controlled by the S.A. Railways? What is the situation? It is completely unclear who in fact is going to be the final authority in that harbour. This Bill is an enabling Bill which says the Railways will acquire and equip the harbour, but it says nothing about the actual control over the harbour. Is control of that harbour going to be vested in the harbour administration? I believe the hon. member for Durban Point has accentuated the question I put to the hon. the Minister during Second Reading by pointing to the Act, which actually does not appear to take control away from Iscor or from the Department of Commerce and Industry. I believe the hon. the Minister owes us a real explanation in respect of these questions.

Mr. Speaker, the discussion here at this point strikes me as somewhat strange. On a previous occasion, when the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs introduced his legislation, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, as the only speaker on the Opposition side, praised it. However, today, hon. members are seeking to create the impression that there are all sorts of problems.

The overall control of the Sandanha Bay harbour is being transferred to the S.A. Railways. This Bill seeks to grant the necessary authorization for this. The legislation which was piloted through by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, provides for a section of the harbour—Iscor’s section—being placed under his supervision by the State President because he is the Minister responsible for Iscor. That is the position. However, this does not detract from the overall control of the harbour as a whole by the S.A. Railways.

With respect to the comments by the hon. member for Orange Grove about the tugs, I might just mention that negotiations are under way between the Railways and Iscor. There are no problems. In due course—especially as the harbour develops as a commercial harbour—matters will be arranged as they are arranged at other harbours at the moment. It is understandable that Iscor incurred certain expenditure for the purchase of equipment for the loading facilities. With respect to the control and the take-over of the facilities, negotiations must necessarily take place between Iscor and the S.A. Railways. This is what it amounts to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this Bill, I would like to deal with it under three headings. The first one is the increase in the duties; the second, the power to vary the duties; and the third, the entire system of sales duty as it presently exists.

In regard to the question of increasing the duties, I want to quote from the first report of the Franzsen Commission. On page 34, paragraph 152, it is stated—

There are two fundamental points in this recommendation. The first is that there must be some degree of selectivity and the second is that the major expenditure items of the lower-income group should not be taxed. In this piece of legislation the hon. the Minister has failed on both scores. In the first place, there is no selectivity at all in regard to the increases, because what he has done, is to take all the items and impose an across the board increase on all of them. That is selectivity in the sense that one is selecting everything, but it is not selectivity as I read it in the Oxford Dictionary. With respect, I think there is something utterly wrong when an across the board increase can be claimed to be selectivity. In the second place, it is recommended that all the items in the lower-income group should be excluded. Apparently, what now has to happen, is that you have to change your standard of living in a rather unique manner, such as by not using certain products—to which hon. members have referred here—in order to accommodate yourself to what is regarded as being essential for the lower-income group. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has talked about the fact that living standards in South Africa have to be reduced, but here the hon. the Minister is going too far when he suggests that these items, in respect of which he is increasing the sales duty, are not in many respects essential items for the lower-income group. For that reason, we simply cannot support the concept of across the board increases at this particular time. All the hon. the Minister is doing, is to impose hardship on the working people of South Africa and to encourage inflation to a greater extent. The argument that one does not encourage inflation by increasing sales duty certainly has no validity over the short and medium term.

In regard to the power to vary these duties, there is a fundamental difference between varying duties which are required for economic reasons and varying duties which are required for purely fiscal purposes. It has been said that there might be abuses. One accepts that when people anticipate increases, there are going to be people who will try to make something out of it, but that is going to happen in any case, because if people suspect that there is going to be an increase, they are going to try and stockpile in order to deal with the situation. Whether one does this at the time of the budget, or whether one tries to be clever and does it at a time when it is not anticipated, one knows how economic circumstances develop in South Africa, and the businessmen are not so foolish as not to do some degree of planning in this regard. Another thing that we must accept is that not the whole community consists out of a bunch of rogues who are all quickly trying to make something out of it. Here, for the sake of a small minority who may be abusing a situation, you are creating a problem for the business community on the one hand and you are taking away a parliamentary power on the other hand. The business community has to plan and they have to make financial arrangements, because they have to carry the extra expenses of the sales duty which is involved. By doing this, the hon. the Minister is harming the business community as such. In regard to parliamentary control, there is no doubt that when it comes to taxation measures, this is one of the most treasured rights which Parliament has. When one takes it away from Parliament and makes the Minister the sole arbiter of this issue, one is taking away a treasured right of Parliament since time immemorial in so far as democratic institutions are concerned. The history of parliamentary democracy shows that this is a right which those who believe in it, try to defend and hold on to, because that is actually how one controls the executive. It is true that in these circumstances the Government has a majority and that it can ratify and legislate retrospectively, but at least we should be given the opportunity of exercising the basic concept of parliamentary control in respect of taxation. For that reason, too, we cannot support this legislation.

The third point I want to make relates to the concept of sales tax itself. I think one can make a number of submissions at the moment, One is that when it comes to the different forms of duty that could have been imposed, i.e. whether it be a single tax, imposed at source, at wholesale or at retail level, whether it be a multi-stage tax or whether it be a value-added tax, that choice was made, I believe—and there is lots of evidence to support it—on the basis of what would administratively be the most convenient thing to do. The question that needs to be answered by the hon. the Minister is whether the experience which has now been had in regard to the administration of this duty has demonstrated that administratively this is functioning well. I venture to suggest that in the present system there are a number of features which are unsatisfactory. Firstly, I believe there is a substantial degree of abuse in the sales duty system and that, in fact, the fiscus is losing very substantial sums of money by reason of this abuse. It is the nature of the system which lends itself to abuse. I believe that that is one of the reasons for seeking to review it. I do not know what figures are involved in this type of abuse, but on the information that is doing the rounds, I believe it must be very substantial. Secondly, I believe that with the present system the fiscus does not get all the revenue it should get and would get from a different system without any undue hardship on the community. The third point is that the public, when they buy, are not aware of what the purchase price should be and what the sales duty is which they are paying. It has no impact on the public as such. In these circumstances the whole concept needs to be re-examined. We need to look at the administrative procedures and we need to establish whether in fact this is the right remedy at all.

I do not say there should be no indirect taxation; far from it. I believe there should be indirect as well as direct taxation which casts the least burden on the community and yet brings in the maximum amount of revenue, and which is open to the least amount of abuse. I do not believe that the present system fulfils these requirements. In fact, many abuses must be taking place.

There is another issue that needs to be dealt with. At the time when we were told that we were going to have sales duty, we were also told that this would result in a reduction in direct taxation. We were told that direct taxation would no longer escalate to the limits to which it had been escalating in the past. What has the result of this been? The result of this has been that our direct taxation is at a level which it has seldom before reached and now we have indirect taxation as well. Therefore, all that happens is that when a new method of taxation is introduced, the old is kept without being reformed. As a result of this the taxpayer gets hit more and more. If one looks back at the Franzsen Commission’s report, one finds that it was recommended that there should be a shift in emphasis away from direct taxation towards indirect taxation and also a reduction in the rate of progression and a limit to the maximum amount of direct taxation. In the light of this, the manner in which the duty has been imposed does not appear to have achieved its objective. I therefore believe that the entire sales duty system needs to be reinvestigated and that we need to look at the matter carefully.

I should like to deal with one specific matter in respect of the working of the system. The whole system is administered by the Department of Customs and Excise and not by the Secretary for Inland Revenue, and the result therefore is that the same concepts are applied to sales duty as are applied to customs and excise duties. The result of this is that the warehousing concept which applies to customs and excise duty is applied to sales duty when in fact it is quite a different concept. Let me give one example as to what happens here. I want to mention what is in fact a very tragic case, resulting from the attitude taken by the authorities that you must pay sales duty on goods which are stolen. In other words, if you have not sold them, but you have been deprived of them due to some unlawful action, the authorities make you pay sales duty on them. A man was robbed and lost his goods. His insurance company repudiated liability on some ground. Whether it was valid or otherwise, I do not know. Then, having nothing at all, he had to pay sales duty and the end of the story was that, not surprisingly, he got a coronary and died. I cannot see why you must pay sales duty on goods which are not sold but which are illegally taken from you, when in fact it is substantiated that this is so. This, I believe, is not due to the fact that there is any ill will on the part of the department or of the Minister, but due to the fact that the warehousing concept is applied to sales duty which traditionally is what every customs man thinks of. I think we should have a look at that particular aspect.

Sir, there are many other details on which one could comment, but perhaps they are more appropriate to another debate. In view of this, I want to move the following—

1. (a) it imposes additional duties which will encourage inflation; and
2. (b) it gives to the Minister of Finance power to increase taxation without specific authority from Parliament”.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a repetition now of all the old arguments we heard yesterday as well. The hon. member for Constantia says that because we are now proceeding to give the Minister this authority, for example, to increase excise duties in the way which is being proposed here, and because he is opposed to this, he will also refuse to approve of other increases we want to introduce in sales duty and so forth. He wants to reject these. This is very interesting, Sir. The hon. member for Losberg pointed out that if this were to happen, one would lose more than R200 million in the form of increased excise on petrol and sales duty. Now I want to put a friendly question to the hon. member: Where shall we be able to recover that amount of more than R200 million? We have to make R1 350 million available for Defence alone. Does he want us to reduce that R1 350 million? It is high time all these things and their implications were realized. Where will that amount of more than R200 million be found? From other taxes, income tax, or where? You see, Sir, there is no reply when one states the facts. We must govern this country and we must have money for doing so, like any other responsible Government.

It is your ideology.

Do you know what ideology means? The hon. member for Losberg also mentioned a very interesting point, namely that it requires only a very small saving in the use of petrol by every motorist to save R75 million a year in the consumption of oil. This is the kind of approach one would like to see, so that our people will realize these things, as well as their implications and their magnitude.

†The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Yeoville constantly quoted the Franzsen Commission, as they did yesterday in another context. I want to ask these hon. members: If in motivating this proposal to give the hon. the Minister of Finance the discretion to raise duties as set out in the Bill, I had done it strictly in accordance with the Franzsen Commission’s recommendation, would they have supported this measure and would the hon. member for Yeoville have withdrawn his amendment?

If you do so selectively.

I will come to that; do not confuse the issue. I have put an absolutely straightforward question, but the silence is, as usual, deafening. Of course, the hon. members will not do so, because they have not thought that far. The Franzsen Commission is one factor in this situation and its study of the matter, its recommendation—although it is an extremely important one—was, as far as this point is concerned, made six years ago. When the Franzsen Commission spoke about these things what was our commitment on defence? It was minimal compared with what it is today. What was our commitment in regard to the economic infrastructure? It was minimal compared with today. Today we are living in a different world. We now have to contend with a rapidly developing economy, an economy which has become an entirely different economy since 1970 as far as its size and nature are concerned. Furthermore we have to contend with the responsibility to make this country militarily truly safe for its people and I can give the members the assurance that we are going to do just that. This is the situation that we are facing.

The Franzsen Commission is one factor in this situation. But that is not the only factor in the situation. Another factor which I mentioned yesterday, is this very carefully motivated recommendation of the International Monetary Fund. That is a very important factor in this situation. Another factor is the question of stockpiling that takes place and which took place just before the last Budget. At that time a newspaper like the Sunday Times stated, in contrast with the statement of the hon. member for Yeoville that this is a small thing, that more than R5 million was involved. The hon. member for Yeoville said that this was just a small thing and that not all businessmen were rogues. Who talked in terms of rogues? It is a question of the loss of revenue that takes place in this way. I can assure the hon. member for Yeoville that it is very easy to come here and make a whole lot of dogmatic, ex cathedra statements without knowing the facts. The hon. member gives his opinion with great assurance on all sorts of things, but the Department of Customs and Excise and other departments happen to know the facts and happen to have learnt by experience. These are most considered proposals and come out of the many years of experience of the most expert people that we have in this field. That is the position. It is all very well to generalize and to make these statements.

The hon. member for Constantia said that the Franzsen Commission said that we could follow this course of action in order to ensure or to promote economic stability. Who says that I will not use these measures in order to do just that? Who says so? Who says that it may not be necessary at some point to obtain this sort of revenue to strengthen the Stabilization Account? Who has ruled that possibility out? Who says that you may not have to increase spending of certain kinds to promote the stability of the economy? Who says so? That possibility cannot be ruled out. What is the use of trying to confine this measure to the verbatim recommendation of the Franzsen Commission when it is a very much wider issue than that? The hon. member for Constantia referred to the increased duties imposed on textiles in 1974. Of course we did that. We received the most sustained representations from this important industry and we acted on the full facts which were before us. We acted correctly to save large-scale unemployment from setting in in this industry and we actually stopped that unemployment from setting in. We reversed that tendency, which was the correct thing to do. Since 1970, when the Franzsen Commission reported, we have only twice raised the duties substantially, only on two occasions in six years. What is this great fear that we are now suddenly going to raise these duties for all and sundry purposes?

The hon. member for Yeoville talks about the fact that we have increased sales duties across the board and says we have not been selective. He also quoted the Franzsen Commission that this must be done selectively. I want to put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that the effect of the increase in the duties, although across the board, is precisely such that the duty on more essential items has been increased by less than the duty on less essential items. For example, the increase in the duty on furniture was only 1½% against the increase of 6½% on fur coats. That is the effect in practice. Also, items on which the lower-income groups spend a large amount of their income, for example food and clothing, are not subject to this tax at all. How can the hon. member say that there is no selectivity in this respect? In fact, there is selectivity from beginning to end. Also, very careful selection took place when the list of commodities was first compiled, and the very way in which we have increased these duties preserves that selectivity and, in fact, increases it in the right direction. That is in fact the position.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville objects very strongly to giving the Minister this power because, he says, we are taking away the fundamental right of Parliament to be the taxing authority. I want to put it to the hon. member that we are not taking away this right at all. If I were to raise excise duties, let us say in September or October this year when Parliament is in recess, because there is in the opinion of the Government a very imperative reason—and that would be the only time that we would ever do it—in the very next session of Parliament I would have to give a full account of this and this Parliament in a matter of a few months could reverse that decision. Those increased duties at that point would be null and void. How can the hon. member say that we are taking this out of the hands of Parliament? All that we are doing is that we are giving the Minister of Finance for a short period the discretion to adjust certain duties. Parliament has to confirm or reject that measure. And it has a full opportunity to do so. It is therefore not correct to say that we are taking away a fundamental right from Parliament at all. Parliament will have the final say. All it means is that for a short period the Minister of Finance can apply certain duties if he deems it absolutely essential in the national interest, and that could be terminated by a decision of Parliament in a short period after that. Again that is the actual position.

It is for these reasons that I cannot possibly see how there can be such an objection to a measure which is in fact one which will be used extremely sparingly, but one which, under the conditions in the world today, several countries have taken unto themselves. There are numbers of Minister of Finance who have more discretion than these powers will give. I believe that we are asking for a modest empowering of the Minister of Finance to deal with what would really be unexpected, adverse developments and where we judge we need this measure in the national interest. That is the real motive underlying this measure.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—84: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon. J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—37: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. J. Lorimer and F. van Z. Slabbert.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting Committee Stage

Clause 3:

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

This clause is the one that reduces from six months to 30 days the period during which proof that goods removed in bond have been ultimately accounted for, must be submitted to the controller of customs at the place from which the goods have been removed to avoid liability for payment of duty. This is a procedure which affects goods which are removed in bond for export and goods which are removed in bond for clearance at places other than the point of entry into South Africa.

Admittedly, in this Bill certain customs procedures have been streamlined, but I regard the reduction of this period from six months to 30 days as being a very drastic reduction. Thirty days may be long enough in the majority of cases to provide proof that the goods have been accounted for, but there are many cases where the 30-day period is not enough. Customs clearance and the documentation for export are complicated procedures and things do go wrong. Delays do appear, mistakes are made and there are delays in mail, and occasions arise quite frequently where a 30-day period is not sufficient time to produce this proof.

I have had long experience of this type of thing and I hope on this occasion the hon. the Minister, as I have asked him to before, will listen to someone who knows what he is talking about. [Interjections.] I have had a strong appeal from the Chamber of Commerce in this regard that the 30-day period is not long enough, and that it should be extended to 60 days. I have had appeals from clearing and forwarding agents to the same effect. I do ask the hon. the Minister to take my amendment very seriously and to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly wish to give careful thought, as I have done, to this amendment. The amendment has been discussed very fully with departmental heads and they in turn also had discussions with people in the business sector. It is generally felt that the period must be very substantially reduced. From our point we are quite sure that a 30-day period is in fact reasonable. This is our conclusion after long experience by the department, as the hon. member will appreciate. We feel that a short period will facilitate the administration of all the procedures in respect of the removal of goods that are in bond and it will also enable the department to have a better general control over the goods. I think it ought also to be mentioned—this is a point which the department stresses—that the period should be 30 days because it is only after the expiration of the period that the department is in a position to follow up the cases in respect of which the required proof has not been submitted. I am told that in some cases it will, in fact, mean 60 days. It is really in the light of that that we should like to give this an opportunity to be tested.

If it is found—and we do not think it will be so found—to be unreasonable, I will be quite prepared to come forward at the first opportunity to adopt such an amendment. I must stress again, however, that in the light of our experience we do not think that it will be found unreasonable. Obviously there is nothing political about this and we really want to do the best thing for both sides. I will bear what the hon. member has said closely in mind and I will certainly be prepared to give attention to his amendment if, in any way, this is found not to be working as satisfactorily as we believe it will. I hope the hon. member will accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Chairman, I think the position will be satisfactory if the customs officials will treat this matter leniently until such time as they have had more experience of it. I would like to stress that it is the Chamber of Commerce and firms which are in the business all day long which are pressing very strongly for the extension of this period. I therefore do ask the Minister to be lenient in the application thereof.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

Why we oppose clause 8 is because it seems to us to introduce an entirely new and undesirable principle in respect of the Minister’s taxing powers in relation to indirect taxes in general. When I say “indirect taxes”, I obviously refer to the three parts of schedule 1 of the customs and excise regulations, namely customs, excise and sales tax.

If one looks at section 48 of the principal Act and at the various amendments which have been introduced from time to time—there is quite a substantial list of amendments printed in the margin of this particular Bill—one finds that the principal Act and the amendments have provided that the hon. the Minister may from time to time depart from the obligation to obtain authority from Parliament for taxation. Most of the provisions which have been introduced over the years are in fact reasonable provisions in that they have enabled the Minister to depart from this strict principle on grounds which have to do with the defence of South Africa’s industry against foreign competition, usually foreign competition on unfair grounds, or, alternatively, in order to enable South Africa to meet its various international obligations or in order to equalize the position in respect of foreign countries in regard to imports from abroad. More specifically, Sir, and without going into all the details, as that would take a long time, I would like to point out that so far as section 48 of the principal Act is concerned, the hon. the Minister was entitled to amend part 1 of schedule 1 and part 2 of schedule 1 in order to deal with imports. These powers are in relation to such agreements as the Ottawa Agreement, the Brussels Agreement, the Geneva Agreement—GATT—on special recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries in respect of imports only, in regard to nomenclature, in regard to reciprocity with other Governments in order to equalize the arrangements with other Governments that would cancel its commitments, and so forth.

Section 48(2) of the principal Act also authorizes the hon. the Minister to reduce duties, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries or when expedient. Nobody objects to the reduction of duties. This is not an imposition of new taxation.

Section 48 of the principal Act was again amended subsequently by the addition of subsections (3) and (3A). These again have the same purpose. It authorized the hon. the Minister to amend part 2 of the schedule—that is to say, the part dealing with excise—and again on specific conditions. The conditions were that he could convert a duty to a stamp duty or vice versa, without increasing it. It would bring suspended duties into effect, duties which had to do with emergency measures in order to prevent goods from being dumped on the South African market, and as an expedient when duties on imported goods of the same class as those listed in part 1 and 2 of the schedule, were changed.

These were all measures needed to remedy current situations and to maintain equal competitivity of South African industry vis-á-vis imports from abroad. The same principle applied to the amended section 3A of the principal Act. Again the hon. the Minister was entitled to change the duties in Part 3 of the Schedule by virtue of a change of nomenclature, or to protect any industry, or as an expedient for sales duties, regard being had to the sales duties on other commodities of a similar kind, in order to bring these into reasonable correlation.

Through these years the hon. the Minister has been allowed to depart from the principle of coming to Parliament for approval for taxation, on specific grounds. By and large, this had been reasonable, because, quite clearly, things can happen between one point and another, things which oblige the hon. the Minister to act rapidly in defence of South African industry and against threats of all the kinds which I have listed; threats occuring through action of other people.

Now we come to a new principle altogether. In clause 8 the hon. the Minister has now introduced a new concept, which is that without regard to the Board of Trade and Industries, without necessary regard to the defence of South African industry against foreign imports, without regard to international obligations or to the dumping of goods in South Africa, without regard to any such considerations, he may now come to Parliament and simply—when he deems it expedient or in the public interest—impose additional duties in respect of excise and sales. I refer here to subsection (b) of clause 8.

Any member of this House who has followed my argument, will agree that, as between the previous principal Act and all the amendments which have so far been applied to it, there has been the consideration that the hon. the Minister may act in order to do certain things imposed on him from outside, or in defence of South African industry against difficulties or threats from outside. However, on no occasion has he in fact been allowed, during the parliamentary recess and without the sanction of Parliament, to impose new duties, to increase duties purely when he himself deems it expedient to do so.

This is what I believe to be the main new principle introduced by this clause. We protest most strongly against it. After all, it is the function of Parliament to provide ways and means. If Parliament did not jealously safeguard this fundamental right, what would the main purpose of Parliament be? Parliament is indeed here to control the power of taxation of the Government. This is one of the most fundamental and most important functions of Parliament, and there is in this clause—I refer specifically to clause 8(b)—a clear departure from this principle, and a clear departure from the principle that has been followed in the principal Act and in all the amendments following up to the present time.

The hon. the Minister let the cat out of the bag during his Second Reading speech when he made it quite clear that he needs these powers in order to tax, not in order to defend South Africa against foreign competition and not in order to adjust to changes in our international obligations under all those agreements, but quite simply to tax. If the hon. the Minister might use clause 8(b)—and this substantiates my argument—to tax without the consent or approval of Parliament, then there will indeed be a clear departure from the principle that has rightly been followed up to the present time.

Reference has been made to the recommendations by the Franzsen Commission and I concede that these recommendations were made some years ago and that one would not necessarily endorse every one of them. However, even the Franzsen Commission was careful and respectful of the rights of Parliament. They recommended that the hon. the Minister should have this extra flexibility with due regard to certain limitations and for certain limited objectives. The certain limitations, conditions and certain objectives were in fact those which distinguished …

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that the hon. member be allowed to continue.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for his courtesy. I have in any event almost reached the end of my argument. Throughout the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission, regard was had to the fact that ultimately the power to tax must lie with Parliament. Where they have recommended the hon. the Minister to have special power in order to deal with customs, excise and sales duties, they have always had regard to the special conditions, as distinct from the need to tax, which should empower the hon. the Minister to act urgently in order to adjust certain situations which might put South African industry and trade in a precarious position. I believe that we are departing from this principle here and we object most strongly. The argument has been raised about the hon. the Minister’s power to raise direct or indirect taxes in the Parliamentary recess. It is so that we have a very long recess. I think that as this is so, we have to think very seriously whether we are going to strip Parliament of its fundamental powers merely because it has a long recess—in the pressing needs of our time, the hon. the Minister has to act quickly—or whether in fact we are going to equip Parliament to deal with taxation in the way it was meant to deal with it. It means quite simply that we either abandon the fundamental right and power of Parliament, or we adjust the sessions of Parliament. I believe that before we do the one, namely to strip Parliament of its rights, we should have a very serious look at our parliamentary sessional system and decide whether a remedy cannot be found in sitting at regular intervals, twice or thrice a year, rather than abandoning a fundamental principle of Parliament. We are wholly opposed to this amendment; we think it is wrong in principle and that it is fundamentally an offence against the rights of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with this matter at length and I have tried to give some of the reasons for it during my Second Reading introductory speech and also in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I have listened carefully to what the hon. member for Von Brandis has had to say. I must say that I think he has overstated the matter a bit. After all, he said that we were seeking powers to put up certain duties without regard to various requirements or criteria. If one reads it literally, then that is so, but surely no Minister of Finance is going to contemplate doing this without having regard to all those things and anything else that might be relevant. It is true that one would not now be bound to do it according to certain laid-down criteria, but I cannot imagine that any Minister of Finance would disregard any of them. Our argument is that there may well be circumstances and developments in the future which, in the national interest, will compel us to ask for somewhat more discretion than we have as a Government in this respect.

The hon. member said we were ignoring the fundamental function of Parliament in regard to tax. But are we? I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but it is so important. What are we seeking? It is not as easy as it may seem to say simply that Parliament should be convened after it has been adjourned and that members of Parliament should be called back to Cape Town from all over to handle one particular matter like this. It could be done, but is it really going to be justified? All I am asking for is a temporary discretion. It is literally no more. If for any reason—and it would have to be a very compelling reason—I should find that, according to my judgment and that of my advisers, we ought to raise, let us say, certain excise duties during the recess, for instance in September or October, that would have to be put to Parliament at the very next session, within a matter of a couple of months. Parliament then has the fullest right, just as it would have in the case of the imposition of a tax, to discuss the matter fully. If it so desired, Parliament would be fully entitled to say that it is not prepared to sanction that. That increased duty, which had been imposed one, two, three or four months earlier, would then cease absolutely. One cannot, therefore, say that Parliament is being disregarded. All one can say is that the Minister is getting additional discretion for a very short period.

Are things so desperate that you cannot wait for a couple of months?

It is not a question of desperation. The hon. member for Durban Point is one of the Opposition members who, more than most, sees the need to be absolutely prepared, in a military sense, as best we can in the circumstances confronting us. How can the hon. member say any more than I can say at the moment that something might not happen in, for example, three months’ time which will make it absolutely imperative that we should have more money for a very urgent reason? That is the only sort of imperative situation I am thinking about.

You do not need this sort of power for that.

I am saying that it is in the national interest. That would be an outstanding example. Another kind of situation might however, crop up. We cannot foresee the future. However, we must be careful not to say that we are ignoring the fundamental position of Parliament. I too am jealous of the powers of Parliament. I can assure the hon. member that I have a very strong feeling myself for the powers and the privileges of this Parliament.

Does the Government not have any sort of credit rating over a few months?

Of course we have, but it is not a question of credit rating. It is credit rating in the given conditions. If one wants to raise loans abroad, for example, one has to do this on a very systematic basis. People and countries are standing in a long queue in the capital markets of the world. Capital is one of the scarcest commodities in the world today. One cannot be absolutely sure that one can obtain money at short notice through a loan. A country like Great Britain has had to be absolutely salvaged by a desperation move by how many countries. They could not raise all that money on the capital markets in the normal sense at all.

I just want to add that I think it is reasonable to say, as I tried to say earlier, that we must really also keep up with the times. You know, Sir, it was not so very long ago in world history that no Parliament was prepared even to allow an income tax of any kind to be imposed. When was income tax imposed for the first time in Great Britain? Was it not round about 1800?

Much later.

Yes, but I think it was then imposed for the first time and thereafter it collapsed. It only came back round about 1832. But the fact of the matter is that as recently as 140 or 150 years ago … [Interjections.] Yes, that is my whole point: it was before our time. At that time, even then, the Parliament which was regarded by many people as the Parliament which was perhaps the most developed constitutionally, the Parliament of Great Britain at that time, was not prepared even to consider an income tax, and today the Chancellor of the Exchequer has powers which he never could have dreamt of having 100 years ago. I think it is reasonable to say that, surely to goodness, we must look at the position we are in, at our financial administration and at our constitution in terms of our financial administration. I believe this is really asking for the very minimum. This is not a new thing I am asking for. This has been considered very urgently in the Treasury for a few years already. We have been reluctant to bring it in, but we feel that the time has now come for us to make this move.

That is the whole underlying philosophy. I can only give the assurance, and I think this will be proved completely by our record, that we shall handle this matter with the utmost responsibility and prudence and we shall certainly not wish to ignore Parliament because we are writing into the Bill that any such measure that might be taken must be brought before this House, in practice within a few months, when Parliament can throw it out or approve it. But we cannot say that Parliament is being ignored in any respect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has suggested that I slightly overstated my case in arguing against this clause. May I return the compliment and say to the Minister that I think he has slightly understated his intention in regard to this Bill. Sir, I would be the first to concede that times have changed and that new pressures have in fact led the Government to consider whether they can adequately govern this country with due regard to Parliament and its rights while we operate on the basis where Parliament is in recess for seven months a year. It is a general concern which I concede. In fact, departments other than the hon. the Minister’s, have brought legislation to Parliament this year asking for powers to do things between sessions not in accordance with the normal practice. I have in mind such things as defence, the Minister’s own savings levy, and such things as security laws and civil rights, where action can be taken between sessions and need only to be reported to Parliament when it sits again. The trend is discernible and it is also understandable. But I believe that we are departing from the fundamental principles of parliamentary practice in doing these things and we have to consider whether we are going to govern by exception from parliamentary practice and principles, or whether in fact we are going to adjust Parliament to cater for this new need. In my view, there is no real choice, no valid choice. Rather than abandon the rights of Parliament in these matters, we must look at Parliament itself and see whether it should not sit in such a manner that it can cope with these emergency situations as and when they arise. I believe therefore that clause 8 is a wrong approach, and if next year the hon. the Minister would come to Parliament with a motion that there be created a Select Committee to examine the sessional arrangements of Parliament, I would be the first to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand why hon. members lay so much emphasis on the idea that the Parliament is being deprived of its powers here. Let us view it in the light of the fact that in this connotation the hon. the Minister, in consultation with the Reserve Bank and other bodies, has the right to review very important monetary measures from time to time and implement certain measures in that connection. These are measures so broad in scope that they are indeed far more radical, far more drastic and much broader in scope than the powers being requested here.

For example?

The hon. member can think of so many, inter alia exchange control and credit restrictions. These are very drastic measures, measures which go much further as regards the economic situation of the country than the measure being requested here. Hon. members have been given the express assurance by the hon. the Minister that this measure will only be applied when it is in the national interest to do so. The hon. the Minister is not the only one to say so. This is supported by a well-considered recommendation by the Franzsen Commission, which suggested this course of action after thorough consideration. There is also the IMF mission, people who think that this course of action is essential. However, I maintain that this does not detract from any parliamentary powers or rights. As the hon. the Minister rightly quoted, he has the power to act in this way, but his actions are always subject to confirmation and ratification by Parliament. Should Parliament not authorize this action within about three months—because that is the most it would be—the action is declared null and void. I do not think, therefore, that this is a valid argument, because the action is supported and entrenched by the ruling that the action may not be finally ratified unless approved by Parliament. I should like to point out to the hon. members who are raising so many objections to the measure, that they can go to other countries, inter alia Britain, if they want to maintain that inroads are being made into the rights of Parliament. They would do as well to go and take a look at Britain to see what powers the Minister of Finance, the Exchequer, has in Britain to arrange measures such as these. He has such powers. Hon. members will remember that he has also applied these from time to time. Indeed, it is taken so far there that his actions virtually amount to a budget every few weeks, or at least every month or two. I therefore think that with this argument the hon. member “is overplaying his hand completely” and therefore I say that we shall not accept the amendment.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—89: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—36: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule No. 1:

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

In view of the time limitation placed on this debate, I do not propose to motivate this amendment at any length because I did so at Second Reading. This is an amendment designed to prevent the Government from enforcing the increase in the duty on petrol and petroleum products. For the reasons I advanced at Second Reading we regard the increase in the price of these products—products which are so price-sensitive in the economy—as being an unwise move, and for that reason this amendment is being moved.

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

The hon. member for Yeoville, during a Second Reading speech, motivated this very fully, so I merely want to add that this is a protest amendment against the fact that the sales tax on every item—a tax which is hitting the man in the street so heavily—is being increased to some extent by this measure. We wish to record the fact that this is a hidden tax which the man in the street is not aware of because it is concealed. We also want to record our objection to the fact that this is, in effect, a double burden on the individual making any purchase. In the briefest terms, in fact in terms which a Std. 2 child could understand, if the basic cost of an article is R100, and one imposes a 26% tax, one gets a figure of R126. However, the middle-man imposes a further 100% profit on sale to the retailer. This gives us a figure of R200 plus R52 which gives a figure of R252. The Government collects R26 while the public pays R52 in addition to the normal profit. The merchant is therefore making an unnecessary profit because of the manner in which this tax is assigned. We believe that what the Government has done here, in not being more restrictive in its application, is to impose an undue penalty on a public already reeling under the effects of an ever-increasing cost of living.

Mr. Chairman, I have very little time left so I shall be very brief. I think I have made our attitude in these benches to the sales tax issue in this Bill quite clear during the Second Reading debate and therefore I shall not repeat myself. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not see his way clear to responding to two points which I raised in the Second Reading debate and which are appropriate to this issue. The first is the question of sales duty imposed when theft has been established. Secondly, is he not prepared to review the whole of the sales duty system in order to impose tax at the point of sale and remove from the system abuses that exist at present? These are all points I raised during the Second Reading, but they are points to which the hon. the Minister has not responded. If possible, I would therefore like him to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the thought that sales tax should be paid at point of sale, particularly in respect of the motor dealers. I think it is well known to the hon. the Minister that the motor dealer is a man who finds himself with a tremendous amount of money tied up in his stock inventory, 20% of which is in respect of sales and excise duty. The current method of collection of these taxes leaves much to be desired. I urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the collection of these taxes by means of imposition at the point and at the moment of sale. In other words, at the time of sale the tax is paid to the nearest Receiver of Revenue and that Receiver of Revenue will then issue a certificate in respect of the vehicle which will enable the vehicle to be licensed. Until such time as that certificate is produced, the vehicle may not be licensed. I ask the hon. the Minister to give this very important point his urgent consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the reasons given by the hon. members of the official Opposition for these amendments are really very interesting. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said his amendment was moved in protest and as I understood the hon. member for Constantia earlier, he said much the same. Because we were apparently not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis which would have had the effect of negativing the whole aim of the measure to give the Minister of Finance a discretion to tax, the hon. member for Constantia said that he was going to move the amendment which he has just moved. The amendment of the hon. member for Constantia has the effect of cancelling the increased duty on petroleum products. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is aimed at the cancellation of the increased rates of sales duty.

In the first case the amount involved—this would be a loss of revenue—is estimated to be at least R146 million and in the second case, to be at least R66 million. In other words, an amount of R212 million will go by the board if these amendments are accepted. However, if we should do that, we would clearly not be able to finance our military budget of R1 350 million. I therefore now want hon. members opposite to tell me what we are to do about that military budget. Are we to reduce it by R212 million or are we to find the money somewhere else? If so, they have an absolute responsibility to say where we must find the R212 million. I have asked them that question earlier and now ask them again. As they appear on the Order Paper I cannot help thinking that this is really a very irresponsible series of amendments put up as a protest. They are now moved as a protest without consideration being given to the country’s economy and the desperate need for the money. Is that the way in which we should conduct the financial affairs of this country?

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that the sales duty is a hidden tax. He says it is concealed. Where is it concealed? These things are all in the schedules …

Does the man in the street read the schedules?

These things are known. They are all over town in the shops. These things have been announced and they have had plenty of publicity. What does the hon. member mean by “a concealed tax”? I have never heard of such a thing in my life. This is what we are dealing with—we are now told that this is concealed. Until the hon. members of the Opposition can tell me where I can find the money which is absolutely essential for our defence effort, I am certainly not prepared even to look at their amendments.

There has been a request that we look at the whole question of sales duty and that we should see if it is possible to convert it into a duty payable at the point of sales to the consumer—in other words, a retail turnover tax. If I may I should just like to refer to what I said in my budget speech on 31 March. I said that it was proposed a few years ago that the present sales duty be converted to a duty payable at the point of sale to the consumer or a tax on retail turnover, and that these proposals were referred to the Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy. This commission, I said, had investigated the matter thoroughly and had submitted its report. As a matter of fact, it had submitted its report just before that. I went on to say the problem was a complex one and that aspects of both practice and principles required careful consideration. I further said that the matter was receiving attention. I can assure hon. members that the matter is very much under consideration and that we will be in a position to take a considered decision quite soon. That is in answer to the hon. members for Umhlanga and Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, there is not very much more I can say. I regret I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, normally this is not a Bill that requires to be debated at Third Reading, because it is primarily a one which deals with changes to the customs, excise and sales duty tariffs. I would however like to take this opportunity to reply very shortly to some of the remarks which the hon. the Minister made when replying to the speeches on schedule 1 of the Bill during Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister seemed to indicate that he thought the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was moved as a protest against his non-acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are two separate issues involved in this Bill, two unrelated issues. The first issue has been raised during the Committee Stage by the hon. the member for Von Brandis and concerns the power which the hon. the Minister is taking to increase excise and sales taxes between parliamentary sessions. We maintain that the Government is usurping the authority of Parliament as the only taxing authority. We have other objections to the taking of this power. We believe that in respect of indirect taxes, such as sales taxes and excise duties, the imposition of further duties of this nature, under present circumstances of high inflation can only make the inflationary position worse. For those reasons—but mainly for the reasons that this power will take away from Parliament a power which Parliament treasures, and that we all treasure—we oppose the Bill.

A second and completely separate issue is the fact that this Bill raises—and raises very substantially—certain indirect taxes. It raises the tax on petrol which, as I have said earlier, is a sensitive commodity. It is a commodity which is used directly or indirectly by virtually every member of the population. It is used directly or indirectly by virtually every organization and by every business, so that the whole cost structure of the country is affected by an increase in the price of petrol, and it has a cascading effect on the inflationary situation. The same argument applies to the increase in sales duties on such a wide range of goods as these increases have been applied to. They have been applied, not only to unessential goods, but they have been applied also to a wide range of household goods, domestic goods, office goods; things that we all use every day of our lives and which are absolute necessities. For that reason—because these increased duties have been applied to them—they are going to be felt by the ordinary person who is going to have to pay higher prices for these commodities. It is for that reason that we are opposed to these duties.

Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to continue, but I notice that my time is up. We shall be opposing the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—39: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft) R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The question of the Transkeian independence was discussed at length by the House last week, and the underlying principle has been accepted. The Bill before us now deals essentially with financial arrangements between an independent Transkei and the Republic of South Africa.

Hon. members will be aware that in terms of the standing arrangements concerning the financing of Bantu homelands, fixed annual grants are paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund into the Revenue Funds of these territories. These transfers are supplemented by additional amounts appropriated by Parliament on a yearly basis.

It would not be realistic to assume that the attainment of independence by the Transkei would immediately eliminate the need for transfers of funds from the Republic to the Transkei. This should not be construed as an indication of no confidence in the economic future of the Transkei. I am aware that it is the belief of some critical observers that while the Transkei may become independent politically, its chances of gaining financial and economic self-sufficiency are less favourable. It is my contention that in assessing the economic potential of any country, one necessarily has to take into account not only the very short-term prospects, but also the longer-term possibilities.

Hon. members may be interested to know that while there was only one factory in the Transkei five years ago, a stage has already been reached where more than 30 factories are operating in that homeland. A total amount of more than R50 million has been invested in these projects while employment opportunities have been created for more than 8 000 Transkeians. It is true, of course, that this favourable development must to a large extent be attributed to the South African Government’s programme for the decentralization of industries. I have no doubt, however, that the Government of the independent Transkei will continue to foster industrial growth in that country.

It is not necessary to point out the revenue-creating effects of such development. When the basis for the financing of the Bantu homelands was changed last year, it was agreed that the homelands should receive from the South African Government amounts equal to the taxes levied on the profits of companies managed and controlled in the homelands by persons other than Bantu persons. Due to administrative problems it has not been possible as yet to determine exactly what amounts are due to the homelands in this connection. In this respect only nominal amounts have, therefore, been included in the transfers to homelands up until now. In so far as the Transkei is concerned, the position can, therefore, be expected to change substantially after independence when the Transkeian Government itself will tax the companies involved.

In the absence of sufficient statistical data concerning the flow of goods across the borders of the Transkei, it has furthermore not been possible in the past to determine the precise amounts due to the Transkei in respect of indirect taxes such as customs duties. Also in this connection the position is likely to change after independence when arrangements will be made for the Transkeian revenue to be determined on the same basis as the income received from the Customs Union’s common revenue pool by Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. One may go further, Mr. Speaker, and point out that in respect of national income per capita, which is internationally accepted as a gauge of economic development, the available statistical data would seem to indicate that even at its present stage of development the Transkei already compares favourably with a number of African countries which have enjoyed independence for a considerable period. Judged by this norm it would accordingly be possible to argue that even without any further assistance from the Republic the Transkei should be in a position to fend for itself. Although this would be possible, the inevitable result would be at least a temporary lowering of standards in the Transkei.

An outcome of such a nature would, of course, not be acceptable either from the Transkeian or the South African point of view. It is therefore the aim of the Government to continue for the present to transfer funds to the Transkei to enable that country to build up its own sources of revenue gradually. It is furthermore the intention to arrange for such transfers to be effected on a basis which will leave no uncertainty on the part of the Transkei and make it possible for that country to plan its own expenditure in a meaningful way.

*Mr. Speaker, I should like to elucidate the various clauses of the Bill briefly:

Clause 1(1):

The necessary statutory power for the transfer of funds to the Transkei is at present contained in the Transkei Constitution Act. As hon. members are aware, however, the existing Transkei Constitution Act will be repealed on the date of independence of the Transkei. At that stage the total amount that has been made available to the Transkei in respect of the present financial year will not yet have been transferred. Consequently the object of clause (1) is in the first place the transfer of the balance of such funds to the Transkei.

At present there are still certain services which are being rendered in or on behalf of the Transkei by Government departments in the Republic. On the date of independence, however, these services will become the responsibility of the Transkeian Government. Since the departments in question have budgeted for the full 1976-’77 financial year, it therefore means that they will have a surplus in respect of the period between independence and 31 March 1977. The intention is to transfer these funds to the Transkei as well.

Furthermore, clause 1(1) makes provision for the transfer to the Transkei of any further amounts which may be made available to the Transkei in the additional estimates or by way of an authorization by a Minister.

Clause 1(2):

As in the case of certain Government departments which have budgeted for a full financial year in respect of services in the Transkei, and will terminate expenditure in this regard at the time of independence, there are also other organizations which will have unutilized funds at their disposal which could be transferred to the Transkei. The intention with clause 1(2) is to authorize the transfer of such funds.

Clause 1(3):

Taxes paid in terms of the Bantu Taxation Act by Transkeian citizens in the Republic are transferred to the Transkei in terms of the existing Transkei Constitution Act. Clause 1(3) authorizes the transfer to the Transkei of that portion of such taxes for the 1976-’77 financial year which have not yet been transferred at the time of independence, and consequently the repeal of the existing Transkei Constitution Act.

Clause 1(4):

Section 7(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, in terms of which additional funds—therefore outside the Budget—may be made available by the Minister of Finance for the defrayal of expenditure, however, also imposes a limit on the total amount which may be made available in this way. Section 7(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act provides furthermore that steps have to be taken for the appropriation of such additional funds during the parliamentary session following on the date of the appropriation of the funds by the Minister. Clause 1(4) provides that any appropriation of additional funds for the Transkei by the Minister of Finance in terms of clause 1(1)(d) shall also be subject to the above mentioned provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. In other words, this means that such additional funds for the Transkei will be included in the total amount which the Minister may make available in terms of 7(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act—2% of the then current budget. In addition, it means that such funds may also be appropriated.

Clause 2:

In contrast to clause 1 which refers only to the 1976-’77 financial year, clause 2 deals with future financial years. Authorization is also being obtained in terms of clause 2 to enter into an agreement with the Transkei in terms of which the following amounts may be transferred to it annually, subject to such conditions and for such periods as may be determined by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

1. (a) The taxation paid every year in terms of the Bantu Taxation Act by Transkeian citizens in the Republic. This will therefore be a fluctuating amount. This amount will not be regarded as income due to the Republic and will be transferred directly to the Transkei, as is at present the case.
2. (b) An amount which is determined by the Minister of Finance but which is not more than the total expenditure of the RSA in or on behalf of the Transkei in the 1976-’77 financial year—that is, expenditure by ordinary Government departments as well as other organizations, for example the Railways and the Post Office—plus an additional amount required by the Transkei particularly in order to continue its new services in the 1977-’78 financial year, i.e. a full financial year, less the additional income which the Transkei will receive in the 1977-’78 financial year. When the total amount involved here has been determined once, it will remain constant. In addition it will represent a statutory amount in the future estimates.

In addition clause 2 makes provision for the transfer to the Transkei of any additional amount which may be appropriated for the Transkei by Parliament in any specific year.

Clause 3:

In this clause provision is being made for the transfer of certain assets to the Transkei.

Clause 4:

It is an accepted principle that assets pertaining to services which become the responsibility of a homeland government are transferred to such government free of charge. In the case of assets of certain organizations, for example the Post Office, it is not, however, the intention to compensate the organization concerned for assets transferred by way of writing off the amounts due to the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, when the Status of the Transkei Bill was debated in this House, we on this side of the House made our attitude very clear, namely that we were opposed to the granting of independence to the Transkei and that we were opposed to the other provisions of that Bill, particularly those relating to citizenship and how citizenship affected Transkeians, as we considered that the Bill then discussed by the House was implementing a policy which just would not work and which solved none of the problems with which our country is faced, and would, in fact, exacerbate those problems. That Bill, despite our opposition, has passed through this House and we now regard it as inevitable that the Transkei will become an independent State. In the Third Reading of the Status of the Transkei Bill the hon. member for Griqualand East made it very clear that this party, when the Transkei becomes independent, will do all in its power to make that independence a success. It will do all in its power to help the Transkei on its way as an independent State. The Bill now before the House gives us the opportunity to demonstrate that what the hon. member for Griqualand East said then is something that we mean.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when any State first becomes independent, whether that State was a colony of an empire, such as many of the recently independent States in Africa have been, or whether that State was part of an existing State, such as the Transkei, when it becomes independent, will have been, such a State invariably needs a helping hand in the initial stages of its independence. This has clearly been demonstrated in the history of recently independent States, for example the former French colonies and the former British colonies. I believe that it is going to be even more necessary in the case of the Transkei than it was in the case of those colonies which I have mentioned.

The Bill before us provides first of all for the position of the current financial year and then it provides for what needs to be done in subsequent years. As far as the current financial year is concerned, this Bill maintains the status quo in respect of the financial relationships between the Republic and the Cape Province on the one hand, and the Transkei, once it becomes independent, on the other hand. We regard this as being clearly necessary if a vacuum in the finances of the Transkei is to be avoided. A vacuum in finances at this stage of the proceedings would be very unfortunate and would be a very poor send-off to the newly independent State. To be more specific, as far as the current financial year is concerned, the appropriations with which we have already dealt in the Votes of the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education will continue to be available to the Transkei after independence, and the taxes which are paid by Transkeians living in South Africa under the Bantu Taxation Act will continue to be paid to the Transkei. We think those provisions in this Bill are reasonable.

Secondly, this Bill deals with the position of years after the current financial year, and empowers the Minister of Foreign Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Finance to make arrangements similar to those that will apply for the current financial year, less amounts of revenue which will then be accruing to the Transkei and which are at present accruing to the South African State. This is a wide clause. In fact, it enables the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make arrangements to give nothing or to give infinity. It is as wide as that. However, it is an enabling clause and I sincerely hope that as the Transkei develops economically it will be able to lean less and less heavily on South Africa for its revenue than is provided for in this Bill.

Independence to the Transkei is going to be far less meaningful if the Transkei has to continue for any length of period to be as dependent on South Africa financially for its revenue as it has been in the past and as it is provided for it to be during the first year of its independence. We in South Africa must continue to do what we can to assist in the development of the Transkei economically so that its own tax bases are widened, thus enabling it to develop its own sources of revenue. I also hope that after independence, once it is free of those ideological restrictions on its economic development which it has been subject to, the Transkei will be able to attract the right kind of capital from private enterprise, in other countries as well as in South Africa, to assist in the healthy development of that territory. For the time being, however, we have to be realistic about the situation in the Transkei. It is a territory which is far from being economically viable, and therefore such provisions as are made for the current year, and such provisions as are needed to enable the Foreign Minister to provide aid in future years, are necessary.

Thirdly, this Bill enables such property of the State, the Post Office, the Railways and the Cape Province as is situated in the Transkei, to be transferred to the Transkeian government after independence, and for the loan debt of the Post Office, the Railways and the Cape Province to the Treasury to be reduced by an amount equivalent to the assets so transferred. In the debate on the Finance Bill the hon. the Minister was asked whether the Transkei, as a quid pro quo for the acquisition of these assets, was going to assume any liability for any portion of the South African debt. As I understood him, the answer was no. In the present circumstances obviously, if the Transkei were to assume any part of the South African debt liability it would only mean that the aid to the Transkei would have to be increased to enable it to service that portion of the debt which it might take over. I do suggest to the hon. the Minister, however, that it would be a good thing—in fact, sound finance—to keep a separate account of the loan commitment which the Transkei should justifiably take over so that we know exactly what aid we are giving to the Transkei, because in addition to the aid we are giving in terms of this Bill, we are also giving aid to them by not requiring them to take over any portion of the South African debt.

Finally, I have noted, in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, his remarks about future arrangements in regard to customs duty. The implication of what he said is that the Transkei will become a part of the South African Customs Union. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us, when he replies to this debate, whether an agreement has, in fact, been reached with the Transkeian government about becoming a part of the South African Customs Union and what the basis of the Transkei’s participation in that customs union will be. We shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to support the Second Reading of the Financial Arrangements with the Transkei Bill. This legislation is the result of the fact that the Transkei is going to become independent in the near future. What we are dealing with here, is the principle of the provision of financial assistance to the Transkei by the Republic of South Africa. As has been said by the hon. member for Constantia, it is no new principle to render aid to undeveloped areas.

When considering this whole matter in its international perspective, it is necessary to quote from Finance and Development of September 1975, in order to show that South Africa has done more than its duty in respect of its homelands—the principle which is under discussion now—

When one considers this and studies the appropriation by the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education, one sees that we have already appropriated 1,59% of the Republic’s gross national product for the development of the homelands during the financial year 1968-’69. Furthermore, one notices that there was a constant increase in percentage from the financial year 1968-’69 to 1974-’75, until an amount equivalent to 2,59% of the gross national product of the Republic has been appropriated for homeland development. When one considers this 2,59% of the gross national product of the Republic and compare it with the objective in the case of the other countries, it is clear that the Republic has achieved a great deal as far as rendering assistance to developing areas is concerned.

When one considers the customs union agreement with the BLS countries, one notices that South Africa has transferred substantial amounts to the relevant countries. I looked at last year’s amounts and I found that R24,6 million had been paid over to Botswana. In the case of Lesotho R15,3 million was transferred while Swaziland received R18,l million. One wants to express the hope and confidence that the Transkei will also become a member of this union and that it will not take very long before this happens.

On this occasion I also want to say that we have a great deal of confidence in the economic development potential of the Transkei. One does not want to repeat facts which have been discussed during the Second and Third Reading Debates on the Status of the Transkei Bill, but I should like to mention in passing that the gross national income of the Transkei amounted to R407,3 million during the year 1972-’73 as against the joint gross national income of R274 million of Botswana, Swaziland, and Lesotho. Sir, in terms of the gross national income the Transkei is already a State in its own right.

Something else which the Transkei has in its favour, is the fact that where developing countries have to pay back a debt of R85 000 million today this new State is starting off without any financial obligations. It is also interesting to note that when one considers the gross national income per capita of the Transkei, it appears that the gross national income per capita of the Transkei amounted to R175 in 1972-’73. For instance, in order to qualify for aid from the World Bank, the gross national income of a developing country has to be less than 200 American dollars per capita per year. This is equivalent to approximately R142. Measured by this norm and standard laid down by the World Bank, the Transkei with its per capita income of R175 on the basis of gross national income has already exceeded by far the level required to qualify for assistance from the World Bank.

Mr. Speaker, one hopes that the financial relations between the Republic of South Africa and the Transkei will flourish in this situation of inter-dependence we have to maintain between the two countries, and that this will be applied to the benefit of both countries. Therefore, I am glad to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we too support this measure and we do so on the basis of realism in that the law has been passed which is to make the Transkei an independent State. I think it is our duty to be realistic and to look upon this Bill in that light. I think I made it clear during the debate on the Status of the Transkei Bill that I would have liked to have voted for that Bill, but that it was made impossible for me to support the measure at that stage because of certain conditions attached to it. This is a measure that we can support, and we have no difficulty in supporting it. I believe that it should be gratifying, not only to the hon. the Minister of Finance, but also to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration—who is not here now—that they can actually place the Transkei in a situation where they can say that Parliament as a whole is unanimous in wishing to place the Transkei on a path of prosperity and that we are voting and are prepared to vote money willingly for the economic viability and for the success of the Transkei. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not know what the noise is all about at the back, I would like to continue with my speech. I believe that it is our duty to make this new country viable and that it is our duty to assist it, because we all wish to have a friendly and close association with the Transkei. I am pleased that the Minister has not looked upon aid to the Transkei in the same light as aid to other States in Africa, viz. through the Economic Development Fund, but that he makes special provision for the Transkei in order to demonstrate that the relationship between the Republic and the Transkei will be a particular one, a relationship which, by reason of history, will be quite different to relationships with other States in Africa.

We have yet another reason why we welcome this, Sir, and that is that we hope that one day the Transkei will come back into a federation of southern Africa. Therefore the relationship that we should have with them is one that would be close and friendly.

The other point which, I believe, is very important is that the danger of their possibly leaving a financial vacuum in so far as the Transkei is concerned, is one that cannot be overlooked. There are other people who, when the time comes, will be prepared to offer aid. We have little doubt as to that. The Transkei will receive other offers of aid and we hope that those other offers of aid will be without strings. In the same way I believe that the aid which the Republic of South Africa is giving, is also without strings. There will be lots of aid available with strings attached, but it is important that we demonstrate that we are not prepared to leave a financial vacuum in so far as the Transkei is concerned.

I believe it is also important that we bear in mind that the world will watch how we treat the Transkei; how we treat the Transkei as an entity and how we treat its citizens. What is even more important, is that other Black people in the Republic will watch to see how the Transkei is treated once it becomes independent.

There is one thing that I believe, needs to be said, and I believe it needs to be said as a tribute to this Government. That is that I believe that the attitude of this Government in regard to putting the Transkei onto the road of independence—irrespective of whether we agreed with the concept or not—can stand up to comparison with many metropolitan powers in regard to independence for their colonies. I believe that approach is one that the world should take note of, because, not only has the Government created a governmental structure for them, not only has the Government tried to provide an infrastructure for them, not only has the Government tried to assist them in regard to industries, but the Government is also putting them on a road on which, from the day of independence, they can run their own affairs. They will have the money to run their own affairs, and I believe that stands up very well in comparison with the attitude that many other metropolitan powers have adopted towards their colonies. I believe that this must be said. It is something which has to be made quite clear.

I now want to deal with the Bill in detail, and look at some of the provisions in it. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to enlarge on some aspects of it. The one matter which concerns the hon. the Minister, is the provision of clause 1(1)(d). I think that in itself appears to give a complete discretion in regard to additional amounts, the provision reading—

It does not have any relationship with the previous provision, and it appears to give a complete discretion to make the amount even larger.

The second matter which I want to touch upon, is clause 1(3). The principle which is being accepted here, is that taxation which is paid inside the Republic in terms of a South African taxation statute, payable in respect of income which is earned in South Africa, is going to be paid to a foreign State. It is a concept of international taxation that taxation is paid where the money is earned. Here we appear to be accepting a new principle in that taxation which is earned by a citizen of another State, in respect of services which are performed in the Republic in terms of a Republican taxation statute, will be paid over to another State. It is perfectly true that this has existed in the past in respect of the Transkei, while it was a part of the Republic, but will it not be better for a grant or a payment to be made, a grant or payment which could be an ad hoc payment, rather than the acceptance of a principle that, where somebody works in one’s country, the taxation payable upon his income does not accrue to one’s own Exchequer?

If one accepts the principle in regard to the Transkei after independence, how does one then explain, for example to Lesotho, that one should not make the identical payment? Or to Botswana, or to any other country? How do we then explain why we do not pay, for example, to Germany the earnings of a German citizen in the Republic in these circumstances? I have no objection to the payment of this money, and I should like to see the money paid, because I believe one has to be generous in these circumstances, but I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this principle which is related to the concept of taxation in that form. I may say that this does not happen at the moment in the case of some of the other territories.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in respect of clause 2, in terms of which the Minister has a discretion which, as the hon. member for Constantia said, ranges from nought to infinity. There is no time limit in respect of this matter. Quite obviously one hopes that it will go on indefinitely, but the question is: What does the Minister have in mind here? Quite obviously, after a period of time these matters will all have to be reviewed, but there is no time limit at the present moment. I obviously cannot expect the hon. the Minister to say to me that it will be a certain number of years, but it does seem to us that one is giving very much of a blank cheque here.

The other question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is: What in fact is being done in respect of the Investment Corporation? What is happening in respect of its assets and its whole concept? How is that being dealt with? I also want to know whether it is possible for the hon. the Minister to tell us whether negotiations have taken place with the BLS countries as to what their attitude is in regard to the Transkei forming part of a customs and monetary union. We should like to know whether this has been explored and whether an attitude has been expressed by them.

I should also like to know whether, in respect of the Railways, any consideration has been given to the Railways there remaining part of the S.A. Railways, and perhaps being operated in the same way as the Rhodesian Railways are operated through Botswana. If it was considered, why was it rejected in these particular circumstances and what are the particular reasons which motivated the handing over of that portion of the Railways Administration?

These are the points I wanted to raise. I raise them now, so that the hon. the Minister can have time to find the answers. I conclude by saying that I believe that, in the present circumstances, it pays South Africa to be generous, Certainly, from these benches we shall not put any hindrance into the way of reasonable acts of generosity towards the Transkei on its road to independence.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House recognize that this Parliament has taken certain decisions about the Transkei which commit us all, including the Transkei, to a certain course. In the light of that, we have no substantial objection to this Bill. It is a necessary measure to put the Transkei in a position to fulfil its future commitments as an independent State.

I should, however, like to refer to the nature of the measures that have been taken. In this regard, when we provide for the 1976-’77 financial year, we are obviously dealing with a situation which is already current. It is entirely right, in looking at this period, that we should have regard to the kind of arrangements which have existed in the past. It is in fact a continuum of the kind of arrangements which have been used to assist the Transkei, as a self-governing part of South Africa, to manage its own financial affairs. The sources of money, as defined in clause 1, are those which have, in general, applied in the past. When we reach future years, that is the years after the 1977 financial year, we run into a new situation. In providing for these subsequent years, i.e. after the independence of the Transkei, the hon. the Minister has again had a retrospective look at the kind of aid which we used to give to the Transkei in past years, and has stated that he may continue such aid. I believe that in looking to the future financial needs of the Transkei, we should look not to the past practice when the Transkei was a self-governing part of South Africa, but to the future needs of the Transkei when it becomes an independent State. Therefore, I believe that these financial needs should be covered in a different way from the manner in which they have been covered in clause 2. As the hon. member for Constantia has already pointed out, clause 2 provides for an undefined amount. It is as long as a piece of string. You can refer, in terms of clause 2, to all the sources of revenue you like and then add 10 more. If it is prefaced by “may” and terminated by “any further amounts that may be determined”, then it could be zero and it could be infinity. Why, in this case, since it could be either of these numbers or any number in between …

It cannot be. There is a statutory amount being determined.

The statutory amount comes after the word “may” It says that certain statutory amounts “may” be paid. Clause 1 contains the word “shall”. In other words, you “shall” pay. Clause 2 is prefaced by the word “may”. In other words, you “may” pay after consultation. This makes a very important difference. There is no commitment to pay the sums mentioned in clause 2. Therefore, the amount which may be arrived at in clause 2 by adding up all these possibilities together, could add up to zero or it could add up to a very large amount indeed. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that all this adds up to nothing at all in the sense of a firm commitment. I believe that when we look at the future needs of the Transkei as an independent territory, we should look at two different things. Firstly, I believe we should look at the position of the Transkei in respect of its future membership of the customs union. It will unquestionably as a member of the customs union look to the same sort of revenues through the same kind of formula as applies to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. It is surely a near certainty that the Transkei will become a member of that customs union, and it will look to the same conditions of participation, financially, as apply to the other members of that customs union. This is the reality of the Transkei’s future. This is a sum which could be fixed as an obligation, an undertaking made now that we will pay them that amount according to the same sort of formula. Clause 2 gives them no such guarantee. It merely says that such sums as they have derived in the past may be paid in the future. I believe that this would be a far better kind of bank guarantee to give to the Transkei to allow it to go on its way.

Secondly, in addition to the amounts derived from its membership of the customs union, I believe there should be provision for grants-in-aid. I believe grants-in-aid could be decided from year to year. This, in fact, is what the additional sums from South Africa will amount to. They will be grants-in-aid determined not in accordance with all these considerations but in accordance with the needs of the Transkei, over and above the moneys it derives from the customs union arrangement. This, I believe, is the reality of the Transkei’s future. I believe that clause 2 is a theoretical adventure which is really meaningless. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he look at clause 2 in the light of the arguments I have advanced in order to give the Transkei some certainty and some indication of what it may look forward to in the future instead of these vague references to past practices which add up to nothing in so far as the future of the Transkei is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their support of this important measure in connection with the Transkei. The hon. member for Lydenburg furnished us with very interesting particulars of the extent and the kind of aid which is being offered to developing countries, and I think he also emphasized the fact that this is neither a simple nor an easy matter. One is moving here in a sphere in which one has to feel one’s future way to a certain extent and as one is moving forward, one has to effect adjustments where one can. But I want to say that thorough consideration has been given to this matter by various senior officials of various departments, and I really want to congratulate them on their efforts to submit this Bill to this House, because this is a new subject; this is pioneer work.

†The hon. member for Constantia asked that a separate account be kept of the assets that might be taken over. I think the hon. member can be assured that we will certainly keep a proper account of the items and of the amounts. There is no question about it that all this will be done on a very systematic basis. The question of a customs union was raised by the hon. member for Constantia. The position in this connection is that there are a number of agreements that still have to be concluded. There have been very constructive negotiations, particularly on this financial-economic ground. There is therefore no finality at the moment. What we would certainly wish to see from our side is that the Transkei might join the present customs union between the Republic and the BLS countries. I would think the signs are very encouraging indeed for that. But until a formal agreement is reached, there is no reason why we should not prepare the ground and even go so far as to have an agreement between the Republic and the Transkei, a sort of bilateral agreement, and arrange their affairs on that type of basis. We have a very good model to work on. That is the position at the moment.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville asked about Transkeians working in South Africa and paying tax and paying this tax to the Transkeian Government.

*He also mentioned the question of taxes and the citizens of other African States. I understood him to say that there is a difference in this respect compared with what applies in other countries. However, according to the information at my disposal, this is not the case. The citizens of Lesotho who are working in South Africa, also pay taxes to their country. As a matter of fact, they have officials here in South Africa who collect the money and transfer it directly to Lesotho. Therefore I do not think there is really any difference as far as this is concerned, and this clause is, therefore, a continuation of the principle which is already being applied in South Africa. Then there is the question of time. I think the hon. member said that the position which is being set out or summarized here, may be continued for a very long time. I have to point out that a very important aspect of this legislation is that provision is being made here for the entering into of an agreement between the two countries, South Africa and the independent Transkei, and the duration of the provision will, of course, be thrashed out there and provision will no doubt be made in an agreement of this nature so that it may be revised from time to time. I think it depends on the agreement which is going to be concluded. This will probably be one of the provisions thereof.

†The hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of clause 1(1)(d). This paragraph refers to expenditure authorized by the Minister’s special warrant and is, in terms of clause 1(4), subject to the same limits as other special warrants. It must be appropriated by Parliament in due course, usually in the additional estimates. No new procedure would therefore be followed in that instance as it would form part of the existing procedure and be handled in exactly the same way.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to clause 2. He was not very happy about this clause. He thought it was a theoretical exercise. However, a great deal depends on the agreement we reached with the Transkei. After all, the Transkei is as yet not independent and important agreements will still have to be reached. This is really an enabling measure for the future and as far as the post-1977 period is concerned, this is really an empowering measure, and that is why it has been put in this form. The only, what one might call, open amount is mentioned in clause 2(1)(c) and it is clear that this amount must be appropriated by Parliament. The amount mentioned in clause 2(1)(a) would be a determinable amount each year. The amount mentioned in clause 2(1)(b) is a fixed amount. That is what we would like to use as a sort of basis for a statutory amount in the future. This amount could be augmented in the ways I have set out here. The hon. member will, however, appreciate that all this has to be, as it were, enshrined in an agreement. Once that is done, at least we have the legislative form and provision for it.

Do you agree that clause 2 offers no guarantees to the Transkei?

It is making it quite clear what our approach is and we will certainly wish to see that this procedure is followed. It is very carefully thought out. The hon. member must remember that we have had considerable negotiations with the Transkei. I am glad that this point has come up because I should have mentioned it myself. It is not as if we were taking all this out of a hat and saying that this is what it must be; we are now making provision and this is what it will be. We have had considerable negotiations with the Transkei and a joint committee at very senior level worked on this. There have been further inquiries and discussions at other levels. This measure is also based on consultations which have been going on for a long time.

I again wish to thank hon. members for their support and I am sure that we have the legislative capacity and the necessary form to make a success of this important matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I raised the question of a reduction in the debts of the provinces, the Railways and the Post Office to the Treasury in return for the assets that they will transfer to the Transkei. I also raised the question as to whether the Transkei will take over an equivalent part of South African debt. It is realized that the Transkei will not take it over. I did suggest, however, that a separate account should be kept, not of the assets that are transferred, but of the part of the South African debt that the Transkei really should take over, and which we are not obliging them to take over. Otherwise we shall not know the extent of the aid we are giving the Transkei each year.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I did not deal with that matter fully. There are two aspects in that connection. We shall bear that in mind. I think there is certain merit in it. In fact, I am quite sure that we are envisaging to do just that.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to convey my sincere thanks on behalf of the University of Port Elizabeth to you, Mr. Speaker, for granting that the Bill may be dealt with as a public measure. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Leader of the House for permitting the introduction of this Bill at such a late stage of the session, as well as to the Whips of the Opposition parties for kindly promising their support of the Bill.

The Bill does not contain any drastic amendments. Last year, after the University celebrated its tenth year, it became apparent that it was necessary to amend certain provisions slightly in order to bring them into line with established practice. For example, section 1 is amended by leaving out the word “associate professor”. This has been done because in the definitions, “teacher” is described as a professor or lecturer at the university or a research worker. It is clear that all types or classes of professor are included. The most important amendments in the Bill are those contained in clauses 4(b), 5(b), 8 and others, which make provision for the appointment of one or more persons to the office of vice-principal. In this way the University of Port Elizabeth is being brought into line with the other South African universities where the statutory post of vice-principal is already well known. The number of students at the University of Port Elizabeth has risen well over 2 000, and the principal therefore needs somebody to support him at the management level and to ensure effective control in his absence. The vice-principal will also be a member of the University Council.

In clause 5(e) the teaching function of the senate is now specifically mentioned as in the case of other South African universities. The purpose of the amendments in clause 6(a) is to extend membership of the convocation to those who are in possession of diplomas and certificates of the university. This is being done at the request of the senate and the convocation. Section 18 is hereby being repealed because there is no longer any need for it. It was originally intended to make it easier for students who, immediately before the inauguration of the University of Port Elizabeth, had studied at the Port Elizabeth branch of Rhodes University, to transfer to the University of Port Elizabeth. The proposed amendment of section 19 now brings section 10 into line with the practice which has developed at the university, namely to issue disciplinary provisions by means of rules and no longer by means of the statute.

I have now dealt with the most important amendments, and in conclusion, I just want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister of National Education and his officials for their assistance with the preparation of the Bill, and to the Secretary of Parliament and his officials for their assistance with its presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. As the hon. member for Algoa said, a considerable number of amendments deal with the institution of a vice-principal or vice-principals, and in this respect it follows the example of other universities, notably that of the University of Pretoria last year. As a party we respect university autonomy and therefore we shall not prevent the University managing its internal affairs as smoothly as possible. I personally do not agree with the extension of the convocation in the sense that it is no longer going to be limited to members who are graduates, but this is a matter about which they decided themselves. Since nobody’s rights are affected by the amendments before us, we support this Bill and wish the University of Port Elizabeth everything of the best for the future.

Mr. Speaker, we also support this piece of legislation. We regard it as relating to an internal matter of the university, and believing as we do in university autonomy, we feel that it is for them to decide the issue. We therefore give the Bill our blessing.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 11 February this year the subject of the Estate Agents Bill (B. 38—’76) was referred to a Select Committee with the power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill. The Bill of which I have just moved the Second Reading is, then, the Bill of the Select Committee concerned—Select Committee No. 5 of 1976—submitted to us in accordance with its terms of reference. I explained the major principles contained in the proposed legislation before the Estate Agents Bill was referred to the Select Committee. Since the principles of the Bill under discussion do not differ a great deal from the principles of the previous Bill, a Bill which I think I explained fully, I do not intend to elaborate on it at this stage. I believe that there are hon. members who served on the Select Committee who would like to inform this House as to the improvements effected by the Select Committee to the legislation originally proposed.

I should very much like to have the opportunity, at the end of the discussion, to convey the sincere thanks of the Government to the hon. members in the Select Committee for their contribution to the debate and also for the way in which the committee carried out its task.

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the hon. the Minister on the manner in which he presented the Second Reading of the Bill. He certainly has struck a very co-operative note.

As a member of the Select Committee, and because I shall not have a later opportunity, I should like to say in presuming what he will wish to say later, how very pleased I was to serve on the Select Committee under the very able chairmanship of the hon. member for Germiston District. I think the results of the Select Committee are indicative of the value to this House of a Bill going to a Select Committee before the principles of the Bill are finally accepted at the Second Reading. This Bill has come back, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, with not much variation, but it has obtained the consensus of those who served on the Select Committee and only a few slight differences of opinion are revealed. Those slight differences will probably be expressed later during the Committee Stage by one of my colleagues.

The Bill has two main principles. The one, which I think is the primary purpose of the Bill, is to ensure protection for the public. This principle is being well established by providing for an Estate Agents’ Fidelity Fund which will be a form of security and insurance for the public in regard to the funds that are handled and dealt with by estate agents. The other principle concerns the regulation and management of the business affairs of estate agents. With this principle in view the Bill provides for the establishment of an Estate Agents’ Board.

The establishment of a fidelity fund for estate agents, a fund of which every estate agent will be obliged by law to be a member, has been very warmly welcomed by all who have had an opportunity of seeing the Bill as originally advertised in the Government Gazette for comment. I am particularly pleased to be able to say that it was very warmly welcomed by the estate agents themselves and certainly by the leading organizations of estate agents. One such organization, the Institute of Estate Agents in South Africa, already has a fidelity fund for its members. It is a purely voluntary fund to which its own members by virtue of their own code of ethics are obliged to belong. This fund was founded in 1966 and it has been of very great value indeed, I must say, to the public generally because anyone who deals with an estate agent who is a member of the institute will immediately observe from the literature of the particular firm of estate agents that they are members of the fidelity fund of the Institute.

In its own memorandum submitted to the Select Committee the Institute states that fraudulent dealings and embezzlement by estate agents, mainly non-members of the Institute, have increased most noticeably in recent years. The Institute believes that some form of control of an estate agent’s funds has become urgently necessary. This theme has been expressed by most organizations such as Sapoa and organizations which deal with auctioneers and live-stock agents. They all express their satisfaction with this type of legislation.

With regard to the funds which are administered, it may be of interest to the House to know that the 800 members of the Institute of Estate Agents—the number of 800 represents about 20% of the total number of estates agents’ licences issued in the country—were responsible for a sum of nearly R200 million per annum collected only in the form of rents. This is apart from moneys collected for building societies, insurance and other amounts left in the hands of estate agents. One can therefore fully realize the enormous amounts of clients’ funds which remain in the estate agents’ hands and in respect of which clients need protection.

The object of the Estate Agents Board which is to be established in terms of clause 7 is to maintain and promote the integrity of the estate agents and, inter alia, to frame a code of conduct and to encourage and promote the improvement of standards of training and service in consultation with and the approval of the hon. the Minister. In the case of a type of undertaking that is purely of a commercial nature, where any person can walk into the office of the Receiver of Revenue and obtain a licence on payment of a licence fee, I think the endeavour to establish a code of ethics and bring about higher standards in the services rendered by these people and in the discharge of their obligations to the public, is to be highly commended.

There is also provision in this Bill for any person to apply for exemption from the provisions of the Bill with regard not only to a specific code of ethics, but also to the other obligations which will rest on estate agents in terms of the Bill with regard to keeping of accounts, the auditing of their accounts and membership of a fidelity fund. Representation for exemption have come from some of the leading trust organizations in this country, and more particularly from the National Council of Chartered Accountants of South Africa, which is a highly specialized professional body incorporated by statute. I think it would therefore be interesting to have a look at the definition of an estate agent to see how carefully the Bill that has emerged from the Select Committee deals with the matter to ensure that these various persons are fully protected and to make provision for applications for exemption. The Bill gives the following definition of estate agent: “ ‘estate agent’ means any person who for the acquisition of gain on his own account or in partnership, in any manner”—these are the relevant words I am now about to read—“holds himself out as a person who, or directly or indirectly advertises that he, on the instructions of or on behalf of any other person” carries out certain activities such as the selling of property, the letting of property, collection and receiving of moneys payable in respect of property and leases and in association with that, the collecting of rent and other funds on behalf of persons by whom he is instructed. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that for any person to fall under the terms of this particular Bill, he must hold himself out or advertise himself directly or indirectly as a person who carries on this type of activity.

One particular organization has actually been exempted from the terms of the Bill, and that is the attorneys’ profession. Attorneys, notaries and conveyancers are excluded by clause 1(vi)(d), which reads as follows: “ ‘estate agent’ does not include an attorney who on his own account or as partner in a firm of attorneys or as member of a professional company performs any act referred to in paragraph (a)”—and these are the relevant words that matter—“in connection with his activities as a practising attorney”. The other professional body that made representations for exemption, namely the National Council of Chartered Accountants, made their representations on the grounds that they too were a professional body. It is of interest to note that the only body in the country today, in commercial or whatever other undertakings, professional or otherwise, that is obliged by law to maintain a fidelity fund is the legal profession, the members of the side bar. That is incorporated by statute, Act 19 of 1941. It is fully incorporated and the Act makes the fullest provision to cover the public with regard to any of these types of transactions as long as they are carried on, as the Bill under discussion fully provides, in connection with the activities of a practising attorney. The reasons for their being exempted is firstly that they have a fidelity fund and secondly because they handle a considerable number of transactions associated with the activities of an estate agent; and also because in the rural areas they virtually carry on the activities of a broker and estate agent and really are the estate agents in many of the smaller villages and towns dotted throughout the rural areas of our country. Therefore, because of their fidelity fund and the fact that their activities will be associated with their practice as attorneys, the members of this particular profession will be exempted. I have no doubt that the members of a professional body such as the public accountants, who have to register with the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board in terms of Act 51 of 1951 and who have a code of ethics themselves, the breach of which can cause them to be erased from the roll and compel them to cease practice as public accountants and auditors, will refrain from advertising—which is one of the provisions defining a person as an estate agent—nor would they hold themselves out as defined because that too will be prevented by their code of ethics. However, if they do so—if a public accountant would hold out to the public that he collects rents on behalf of clients who might ask him to do so, or that he would be prepared to negotiate the sale of a property—they would fall under this particular definition and would be subject to the terms of this Bill when it becomes law. I am assured though that public accountants are, in terms of their code of ethics, not allowed to do this. Therefore, I feel that we in this House—and I hope that the hon. the Minister will say so—can assure the public accountants and auditors that they will not fall under this Bill at all, unless, of course, they qualify in terms of the definition, which really puts them into the field of a commercial organization.

As I said earlier, the main value of this Bill is not only to enable estate agents to place themselves on a very much better level in their business relation and to improve the standard and quality of the service they render to the public, but it is also, as far as they themselves are concerned, to order and regulate the charging of fees and their manner of services. At the same time it serves as an assurance to the public and it enables the public to have confidence in the moneys which are being handled by them. I do believe that any person or any body or any organization entrusted by virtue of commercial practice with the handling in a fiduciary capacity of money belonging to the public, should be in the position where the public is being protected by statute from any defalcation or theft.

Some public bodies, such as big trust companies, may do this type of work and may very often hold themselves out as doing this type of work. They may apply for exemption but that is a matter which the hon. the Minister, together with the Estate Agents Control Board, must consider. There may be cases, such as that of a banking institution, like Barclays Bank, who might have a special department for that purpose and who might apply for exemption. In the light of the standing of such an organization, I imagine, the control board and the hon. the Minister may decide as to whether such a body be exempted. Of course, there is a very simple solution to that. A separate company can be registered, a company which can comply with the terms of the Bill; such a company will then be entirely divorced from the activities of a big financial institution, which may be affected.

On these grounds generally we are very pleased with this legislation. I believe that every consideration has been given to the representation of the public. I sincerely hope that this will bring about a new era in the field of estate broking and that the public will be protected, as it should be, with regard to the enormous amount of funds which yearly flow through the hands of this type of business. We support this Bill, and we wish the hon. the Minister well with it.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to thank the hon. member for Jeppe for his friendly words concerning the manner in which I discharged my duties as chairman of the Select Committee.

†I should like to tell the hon. member for Jeppe that I was taught the secret of good chairmanship by my late father-in-law who, many years ago told me the following: “A good chairman should get up, speak up and shut up.”

*The Estate Agents Bill has been a long time in the making. I investigated the history of estate agents and found that as far back as 1939, attempts were made to place on the Statute Book a Bill which would control the activities of estate agents. 1939 is a long time ago. Let us now compare it with the time the Select Committee took to bring an amended Bill to this House. On 10 February the hon. the Minister made his Second Reading speech when he introduced the original Bill. On 11 February it was referred to a Select Committee which was to be appointed, and on 13 February you, Mr. Speaker, appointed a Select Committee. You will allow me, Sir, to mention the following constituencies of hon. members who served on the committee: Walmer, Overvaal, East London City, Wynberg, Heilbron, Vryburg, Springs, Malmesbury, Brakpan, Durbanville, Jeppe, Newcastle, Johannesburg North and Germiston District. As I have already mentioned, the Bill was a long time in the making and, probably as a result of the long history of the Bill, the Select Committee attended to it reasonably quickly. The Select Committee met for the first time on 29 March this year and for the last time on 6 May. The investigation therefore took less than two months. The reason why the Select Committee was able to conclude its activities so speedily was the fact that there was consensus among the hon. members who served on the committee as to the need for such a Bill. All representations received from bodies and persons and submitted to the Select Committee, were unanimous that the Bill was essential in South Africa. For this reason there were no disputes as to the principle of the matter. The minor differences that did occur with regard to details were very soon resolved. I agree with the sound speech made by the hon. member for Jeppe. However I should like to convey my thanks to certain people and bodies.

The first person I want to thank is Adv. Brasler of the Department of Trade who assisted the committee very ably and thoroughly. He solved every problem we came across with regard to definitions, etc., in a very decisive and able fashion. I also want to thank the committee clerks, Mr. Pretorius and Mr. Botha, who furnished the committee with all the documents very thoroughly and without delay. I also wish to convey my thanks to those persons who gave evidence in person before the committee, viz. Mr. Walkin of the Association of Law Societies and Messrs. Randall, Redhill and Van Soelen of the Institute of Estate Agents. I also want to thank the chartered accountants for a memorandum which was of great value to us. There were others, too, but I want to make special mention of this one because of the practical suggestions it contained. We received representations from 27 bodies and we gave very thorough attention to all of those representations. The Bill at present before the House includes, to a greater of lesser extent, virtually all the recommendations and suggestions made by those people. Another hon. member will deal with the issue of the liability of attorneys who are excluded from the legislation and the issue as to whether their fidelity fund will also provide for cases where they do the work of estate agents.

As the hon. member for Jeppe has said, we received appeals for exemption from various bodies, inter alia, from the accountants, the banks, the trust companies and non-profit companies. We saw fit to give the Minister the power to exempt bodies and persons from certain or all of the provisions of the legislation in terms of the Bill and after very thorough consideration of the representations received from these people. I think that this is a very practical arrangement and it ought to meet with general approval.

In conclusion, I want to say that I am very grateful to the hon. members who served with me on the Select Committee. They were very helpful and very loyal to their chairman. This enabled me to have the work dealt with very speedily.

My last thought is that even in future, now that this legislation has afforded them an opportunity to put their affairs in order and since their activities are now also being afforded legal sanction, the estate agents will attempt to obtain a far higher status for their profession through the training of estate agents. I know that at present it is the case that any Tom, Dick or Harry, even I, can take out a licence and offer properties for sale and sell them for a commission. There are people who have no knowledge of the legal aspects of a transaction. In my opinion this is a very unhealthy state of affairs. Estate agents ought to be properly trained, and I should very much like to see them making provision, in their code of conduct, for courses for estate agents so that the profession of estate agent may be afforded a higher status. Even universities could give attention to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee, I rise to indicate that this party support the Bill. I should like to raise one particular point, a point to which the hon. member for Germiston District referred and with which I agree completely. That is his plea for a procedure of training for estate agents. Now that estate agents have been given the status which the Bill undoubtedly gives them and the public is being afforded protection against fraud, there are two factors which should be considered in the future. The one was mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston District and I will not therefore go into it again. I am referring to the need for a proper training procedure. The second factor I should like to put to the hon. the Minister for consideration, is that many estate agents do not have enormous financial resources of their own. If there should be professional negligence in advising a client—it could easily happen in complicated property transactions—then often the client is not able to sue the estate agent, because the estate agent does not have the necessary financial substance. What happens in other professions is that members are obliged to take out professional indemnity insurance to a certain scale. By taking out this insurance, it assures the public that if the professional person concerned does make a mistake and is found liable at law, then despite his limited financial backing, he is insured financially to cover his liability to his client.

With these few words I would like to indicate that we support the Bill. We think it is a good law to have on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to associate myself with the thanks expressed by the hon. member for Jeppe to the popular chairman of the Select Committee. I can give hon. members the assurance that the way in which the hon. member prepared his work as Chairman was outstanding. [Interjections.] Our Chairman acquitted himself of his task well in all respects and I would attribute the speedy conclusion of our task largely to his guidance and the thorough study he made of the Bill and the trouble he took to ensure that the investigation went off efficiently.

Sir, I should like to confine myself to a single matter, a matter which, I feel, will have to be given serious attention by our Minister in the future. The hon. member for Jeppe has already made brief mention of the matter and I should just like to go into it in a little more detail. He said that attorneys were the only group of people who could act as estate agents and who were excluded from the provisions of this Bill. All other bodies and persons who wanted to be granted exemption from this provision of the Bill will have to apply to the Minister through the Estate Agents Board. Quite a number of bodies insisted, in their evidence before the Select Committee, that all people and bodies who acted as estate agents should be included in the provisions of this Bill. However, the Select Committee felt that attorneys should not fall under this Bill for two main reasons, as has already been indicated by the hon. member for Jeppe. In the first place, attorneys belong to their own law society which has existed for a long time and imposes a strict discipline on its members in accordance with specified codes. In the second place, attorneys have to act in accordance with, and have to comply with, the statutory requirements of the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund in order to afford protection to the public. This, too, is the chief aim of this Bill, viz. protection of the public. According to the evidence before the Select Committee, however, there are misgivings as to whether the attorneys’ fidelity fund would in fact provide cover for attorneys performing the work of estate agents. The opinions of two advocates in regard to the matter were submitted to the Select Committee. In the first place, the Institute of Estate Agents, the present Institute, handed in the opinion of Advocate King. The Institute requested his opinion. Advocate King pointed to the provisions in section 26 of Act 19 of 1941, which describes the scope of the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund as follows—

The advocate points out that in this case the main issue is the definition in the quotation I have read “in the course of his practice as such”. What exactly does this involve? Are moneys received in the course of estate agency transactions by an attorney, covered by their fidelity fund? Is it in the course of his practice as an attorney or not? The conclusions reached by the advocate are—

He further states—

Eventually he comes to this conclusion—

This is the opinion of one of the advocates and I also want to quote to hon. members the opinion of another advocate, Advocate Graham Duncan, who was approached by the Cape Law Society in connection with this matter. I want to quote his conclusions only, since time is running out. To begin with, Advocate Duncan says—

Secondly, Advocate Duncan said—

He concludes by saying—

There is clearly a difference of opinion between these two advocates and it is urgently necessary that there be absolute certainty as to what the course of action of the attorneys’ fidelity fund should be in such cases. That is why I should like to request the hon. the Minister to eliminate this doubt, either by bringing about an agreement between the two funds or by introducing a statutory amendment to the attorneys’ fidelity fund to put it beyond question that it is responsible when attorneys perform estate agency work in conjunction with their legal practices. It is to us a matter of urgent necessity that in all property transactions, definite and unambiguous protection be afforded the public by both the estate agents’ fidelity fund and the attorneys’ fidelity fund.

With these few words the only real doubt harboured by some of the hon. members has been removed and I want to express the hope that the Estates Agents Act will afford greater protection to the public in South Africa particularly since the public has been much exploited in the past.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Germiston District for its outstanding and efficient work with regard to the consideration of this legislation. If one bears in mind that the Second Reading of the Bill took place in the second week of February, and the committee concluded its proceedings as early as May, the committee most probably set an example of efficiency and productivity to many others. I remember an occasion on which I had 85 amendments of the legislation across the floor of the House after a Select Committee had submitted its report. In that case I do not believe the Committee acted with the same efficiency and effectiveness. Just in passing, I note that seven members of the committee were lawyers, and this may explain why the committee was so unanimous in regard to its recommendations.

This legislation should really be seen as one of a series of measures aimed at protecting the public. This legislation envisages doing so in two ways. The first is to enable the estate agents to regulate their activities and thereby also enable themselves to establish certain codes of conduct and business codes. In the nature of the matter, this involves advantages for the estate agents themselves. However, by implication it also involves advantages for the people whom the estate agents deal with every day. In this regard I just want to mention that many people refer to the status of other people, for example the status of businessmen and the status of teachers. But Acts never establish status. However, Acts create the opportunity for people to build up their status themselves in terms of the provisions of those Acts by means of codes of conduct.

I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the second consideration which is fundamental and basic to this legislation was quite rightly summed up by all the hon. members who took part in the debate. It is that property is increasingly the one field in which people are investing their money because it represents, inter alia, increasing values. Because this is so, it goes without saying that in this specific activity within the business world there will be people who will want to venture into this field to gain a quick profit. This being so, there have been many complaints about the insecurity of funds relating to property transactions. I am really pleased that the Select Committee was able to put its stamp on this amendment, with the amendments they effected and which I am quite prepared to accept, because I believe that everything they have done has in fact assisted in making this legislation a more efficient measure with which to achieve the two aims that we wish to achieve.

Now I just want to refer very briefly to the standpoints of the hon. members in this specific connection.

†I would like to start with the hon. member for Jeppe. He dealt with the chartered accountant. One must appreciate two facts. Basically this Bill intends to regulate, firstly, the activities of estate agents. The activities of chartered accountants are already regulated in terms of an Act of Parliament. In other words, from that particular point of view, there is no justification that they should be included in this definition. There is another facet of this, however, a facet which is very important, and that is the question of the Fidelity Fund that is to be established. There is by law no requirement on chartered accountants to establish a compulsory fund of this nature although it is true that certain moneys which they handle, for instance insurance premiums, must be deposited to a separate account. If chartered accountants hold themselves out as estate agents as per the definition, naturally they will be included, for the simple reason that they do not have the second leg which we are looking for and that is the fidelity leg. I should like to explain this more fully to hon. members. Although chartered accountants as lawyers are not entitled to advertise as accountants or lawyers that they are estate agents, they can advertise the name of the firm without reference to the fact that they are also lawyers or accountants. Then they are in a position where they hold themselves out, not as chartered accountants per se, but as a firm to do this work. Under those conditions they could not possibly be exempted. Therefore, the basis on which exemptions can be granted must be—and I want to be perfectly honest and clear about this—that I must be satisfied that the applicant for exemption can give us the assurance that either the institution or the firm has sufficient funds at its disposal to ensure that the protection which we wish to afford to the general public is afforded in that respect. I think nobody will disagree with me in this particular regard.

*I want to deal with the other points very briefly. There are certain banking institutions that are going to apply to me for exemption, and it is very important to know that the trust funds must in any event be invested in banking institutions. One would therefore be justified in arguing as follows: If, then, one invests the trust funds in the bank, is the bank not strong enough to afford cover for its own funds? This, of course, will depend on the bank itself, viz. the size of the bank and the extent of its activities. This legislation is not, of course, intended to create difficulties for people in the course of their business. The legislation is merely intended to comply with these two fundamental requirements. When I have to consider an application for exemption in co-operation with the board which is to be instituted, these will be the cardinal considerations I shall take into account when dealing with such an application.

I now want to associate myself with the hon. member for Germiston District and convey my thanks to Mr. Bräsler for his assistance in this specific connection. There was much anxiety among the estate agents that this legislation would not be passed because in their opinion, there were too many attorneys in the Select Committee. However, after I, as a member of the fraternity, gave them the assurance that this would not be a hindrance, they were happier about it. I am pleased, therefore, that hon. members have made it possible for me to keep my word in this connection.

I think that the issue of training is associated with the issue of the codes of conduct to which the hon. member for Germiston District and the hon. member for Randburg referred. However, I should not like to regulate the activities of the estate agents, but I should like to create the machinery for them to be able to do so themselves, because this is clearly the most effective and efficient method of doing so. I think, therefore, that we welcome the fact that the Bill will make it possible for them to do so.

†The hon. member for Randburg referred to the question of a professional indemnity policy. I just want to explain the position to him. The legal profession has no compulsory indemnity insurance policy against wrong advice, negligence or that sort of thing. The profession has an organization that does that for them as a group. I can, however, well believe that in future the same sort of development will take place as far as estate agents are concerned. At the moment I do not think we should make this obligatory. I think they would probably have to have rather high fees to build up their fidelity fund to protect people against losses, falsification, theft and that sort of thing. I therefore do not think one should make that burden too onerous in the initial stages, but that is certainly something one can consider for the future.

*I now come to the hon. member for Veryburg. If advocates could not adopt varying standpoints, then in the nature of the matter, the profession would not be able to justify its existence. I, of course, endorse the standpoint of advocate Duncan, but before the conflicting opinions have been tested in the courts, one can argue that there is a degree of uncertainty. However, I think that the test is how it works in practice. I am unaware of any claim that has been refused by the fidelity fund of the legal profession on the grounds that the funds reached the attorney as the result of a property transaction. Whatever the case may be, if one is to err, then in my opinion one should err on the right side rather than on the wrong side. I therefore undertake to talk to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, under whom the legal order falls, to ensure that his legislation is adjusted to establish the necessary certainty, even though it be only to make assurance doubly sure.

I wish to thank hon. members sincerely, not only for their contributions, but also for their work in the Select Committee. I am pleased that we can now dispose of the legislation because it is a piece of legislation which has been submitted to this House on so many occasions, but which, for one reason or another, has repeatedly come to grief along the way.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put to the hon. the Minister for his further consideration the issue of alternates for members of the board. I am sorry to come up with this suggestion at so late a stage and I know that the hon. the Minister will not have the opportunity to give it due consideration at this stage. However, I raise the point so that when the Bill comes before the Other Place and the hon. the Minister has the opportunity, perhaps, to consider the matter further, he may take the necessary steps to amend the legislation accordingly.

I suggest that provision be made for alternates, because the members of the council will come from various parts of our country with its vast distances. It may be that it will be difficult for them all to be present at meetings. If alternates to members could be nominated, it should be easier to arrange meetings. If a member is unable to attend a specific meeting because he lives too far away from the meeting place, his alternate may attend the meeting on his behalf. I therefore suggest that provision be made for the nomination of alternates. If such a provision is included in the Bill, it ought to facilitate matters a great deal. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to consider this suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I shall bear in mind the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wynberg. However, the hon. member must take into account the fact that the Bill may be considered by the Other Place this very evening. There may be too little time between now and this evening, and it is possible that I shall only be able to consider the hon. member’s proposal at a later stage. If I cannot have the matter clarified before the Bill goes to the Other Place, I shall try to introduce a suitable amendment next year.

I accept the position.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Johannesburg North on the Order Paper, as follows—

Unfortunately the hon. member for Johannesburg North cannot be here this afternoon. The motive behind the hon. member’s amendment is quite clear and I do not think I need elaborate on the amendment too much. The hon. member feels that the interest on money given by the client to the estate agent and perhaps held by the agent for some period of time should, in fact, go to the client.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this amendment is not acceptable. I should like to explain the position. More often than not it will not be possible to pay the interest to the particular client. Let me give an example. An estate agent may collect R1 000 in rentals per month. He may invest the total amount for a period of five or six days and therefore he will not be in a position to determine to which individuals the interest earned on the money should be paid. This is one reason why I cannot accept the amendment. What the hon. member, however, wants can happen in any event, because he can get the mandate from his principal, and in that case the interest has to be paid to a particular person whose money has been invested. But let me put it in another way, and I think this is probably a very good example. For many years the legal profession had to pay a certain subscription, a certain amount, into their Fidelity Fund, with the result that that fund for many years remained at rather a small amount. When there were big claims, these subscriptions or payments by individual attorneys had to be increased from time to time. In the meantime attorneys had to keep trust accounts with moneys lying, as it were, without interest in those accounts. Once they allowed the attorneys, subject to certain very stringent conditions, to invest the surplus moneys in the trust accounts—the interest to be paid to the Fidelity Fund—they very soon found that they could abolish the contributions by the lawyers. I wonder whether the hon. member would not accept that. There is provision because a client of an estate agent can per his mandate determine how the money must be invested. I think however that we must leave it at that, for the rest the interest would go to the fund.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw my amendment.

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

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

I think my amendment would clarify the clause, which may be somewhat misinterpreted as to when the audit shall be provided. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

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

The reason for moving this amendment is that the audit profession, which deals with this document that is required, refers to the document as a report, and the procedure that is applied in the case of attorneys who also have a Fidelity Fund and have to have an audit, is that the report is transmitted directly to the body which has control and a copy of that report is sent to the attorney. In order to bring these two procedures into line, it is suggested that the words at present appearing in the Bill should be omitted and should in fact be substituted by the words “transmit a report in the prescribed form in regard to his findings to the board, and a copy thereof to the relevant estate agent”.

Mr. Chairman, I think at this stage I can also move amendments 2, 3 and 4 standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The object of these amendments is merely to identify the interest-bearing account as being the interest-bearing account which is referred to in that particular subsection.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Germiston District, the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Wynberg.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), with leave, withdrawn.

Remaining amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, again in the absence of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I would like to move the amendment which stands in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:

On page 23, in line 45, after “the” to insert “maximum”.

In this amendment it is sought to give the discretion to the estate agent to charge whatever commission he wishes, with a maximum. The hon. the Minister, in consultation with the board, makes regulations prescribing the tariff according to which estate agents may charge. All this amendment does, is to institute a maximum, in other words to lay down a maximum fee which an estate agent may charge. I think the question here, is that there might be particular transactions which involve a great amount of money, or perhaps many stands where the maximum fee is too large for a particular transaction. It might also be that the client and the agent would prefer to negotiate a fee which is at a lesser level than required in the regulations.

Secondly, it is to bring in the aspect of competition between one agent and another, particularly on the bigger deals. One accepts that in smaller deals this would not apply. It is only for the really bigger deal, which could involve contracts stretching over 2 or 3 years. In such a case the size of the fee could be an important factor in competition. That is the motive for moving this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment. However, I would like to explain that the wording of the section as it stands now, does not exclude what the hon. member wants. That is that I can determine that the tariff shall be a fixed one, or a maximum one. However, I suggest that the hon. member should not at this stage bind me to a particular decision. It could well be argued that, if a maximum tariff or fee is introduced, that one has a low tariff. Having merely a guideline will then completely defeat the object of determining a tariff. What is more, the hon. member will know that in this case it again regards the legal profession, which could have been used as an example for the purposes of discussing this Bill. In the case of the latter it can also serve as an example of a prohibition on reducing fees, which is regarded to be unprofessional conduct. I suggest that one should not at this stage argue the merits or the demerits of a fixed or a maximum tariff. I would much rather have the freedom of choice to decide in the light of the proposals that will be put before me at a later stage, whether it should be a fixed or a maximum tariff.

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

This amendment is a logical consequence of the amendment I have already moved, the amendments to clause 32.

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

Amendment moved by Mr. R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft) negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. J. I. de Villiers 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 on this side of the House are prepared to support the Third Reading of the Bill. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Wynberg, who was kind enough—as one can see on the Order Paper—to take sufficient interest to ensure that the Bill passes through the House as perfect a piece of legislation as is humanly possible.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal in this Vote, I want to bring two or three very important matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I want to talk to him about private hospitals for non-Whites. This is becoming a very important matter because, as the hon. the Minister will know, it is almost impossible to find a private bed for a non-White patient today. In the Johannesburg complex the Coronation Hospital occasionally provides beds for Coloureds and Indians, but these are allocated on a permit basis. A permit has to be obtained from the Department of Community Development. The demand for private beds from the Coloured and Indian Communities especially—and there is a growing demand for private beds for maternity cases from the Black people—is growing to such an extent now that we find that there are expressions of dissatisfaction, also about discrimination, coming from these people who say that, although they can afford the cost of the beds, they are unable to obtain them. Some years ago a company attempted to get a permit to erect a private nursing home for Blacks in close proximity to the Baragwanath Hospital. This, however, was refused. The usual reasons were given. The Department of Community Development objected, there was the Group Areas Act to be taken into account, etc. However, we now find that with the increase in the salary scales of non-White people, the demand from these people is growing and they are being accepted into medical aid schemes.

People who belong to medical aid schemes are entitled to get private hospital treatment, but they are not getting this and have to go to the provincial hospitals as ordinary patients where they pay a low fee. Some of them can afford and want private hospital beds. They can afford private wards, but they are apparently denied this facility. I bring this to the notice of the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will be able to use his influence to allow such entrepreneurs who wish to establish nursing homes for non-Whites to be allowed to do so. The erection of such nursing homes will necessarily be in places close to where these people are living. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give this his sympathetic attention. Perhaps in the very near future we will see something being done for these people who require such facilities.

Talking about medical aid schemes which are now open to non-Whites as well as Whites, I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of what we on this side of the House have said before. Repetition is necessary in this case. We on this side of the House stand for and would like to see brought in a nation-wide voluntary medical aid scheme. I want to repeat that this is not a national health scheme. That is something we do not want. We are asking for a medical aid scheme, the cost of which will be shared by the contributor, that is the worker, the employer and the State. They must all have a share in this. It is simply a matter of extending—to a great extent, I agree—the present set-up we have and which is spreading throughout the country. The time has come when we can no longer sit back and say that this should be left as it is. All the people who can afford it and who wish to join a medical scheme should be allowed to do so, and we will soon find that the demands by those people who are being excluded at the moment for some reason—it may be because of race or it may be because of their earning capacity—must be considered. Those people must be brought into the scheme if they wish it.

The next point I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister is the threatened closing or the intended closing of the medical school in Durban. During the Second Reading debate when the Medunsa University was discussed, we on this side of the House pointed out that it was a grave mistake to open up the Ga-Rankuwa Hospital and at the same time to close down the Natal Medical School. We said that we wanted the Ga-Rankuwa Hospital to go forward, but that we also wanted the present medical school in Durban to remain active. That is a very important medical school. I am not going to say much about it. The Minister knows all about the value of this medical school. If they only produce 15 Black doctors a year, they are doing a good service to this country. Let us not stop them from doing this. The Minister of Bantu Education was behind the closing. I say that the education of doctors must remain in the hands of National Education. It does not matter where the medical school is, whether it is in a White area or in a non-White area, but these medical schools must be encouraged to produce as many medical men as possible. We cannot afford to close a medical school which is already established and producing doctors, to have its doors suddenly closed and to make a viable institution such as the medical school in Durban close down, and have it left there as a dead body.

Lastly, I come to another very important matter. Over the last few weeks especially, although this has been going on for a long time there has been a campaign, almost a vendetta, against the psychiatrists of our country and our mental hospitals. I take a dim view of those people who are behind this. I do not say for one moment that our mental hospitals and our services are perfect, but simply to condemn, for the sake of condemning, and to have this vendetta waged against the psychiatrists is doing our country a lot of harm. For that reason I am very pleased indeed that the hon. the Minister has invited representatives of the World Health Organization to come here and see what we are doing. He has also invited the International Red Cross and any other persons who are established judges of what is good and what is bad in health services, to come to our country and to see what we are doing. They may say to us that we are not perfect, but when they compare what we are doing here with what is being done in the whole of Africa and virtually throughout the rest of the world, we have nothing very much to be ashamed of. If any criticism has to come, let it be expressed here so that there can be suggestions as to how to improve the position. I hope that the hon. the Minister will press on and see that these people do come to this country. When I was in Europe I had the opportunity of contradicting very many statements that were made in front of the WHO, and I say to my friends on my left, in the PRP, that if they give their name and their patronage to those people who are trying to break down the services in this country, then they themselves will be condemned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville and I have always regarded the discussion of this Vote in the same light. This evening I again agree wholeheartedly with the attitude adopted by the hon. member in regard to the psychiatrists of our country. I agree that they are persons of outstanding quality and I also agree that the vendetta being waged against these persons is reprehensible.

The hon. member spoke at length about the question of the medical schools at Ga-Rankuwa and Durban. I understand the hon. member’s point of view and I want to give him an undertaking in public today. It is correct that the Government can plan its policy in advance, but I promise the hon. member that if the medical school for Bantu in Durban is closed and there are not adequate facilities available elsewhere, I shall support him. It is no use for us to argue about those things at this stage.

After I had looked up a few things that I wish to speak about this evening, I kept on thinking about the annual report of the department. Because we have experienced contrasts concerning the administration of the Department of Health, I think I shall be permitted to say, because I believe that it should be said, that we are grateful for the improvement and progress made in the administration of this department during the past few years. We wish to convey our thanks for that to the hon. the Minister, the Secretary of the department as well as the whole department. Anybody can take this report and begin to read it and he will read a story of progress in the field of health services. It is not that we want to say that “everything in the garden is rosy”, as the English expression goes, because there are still problems. Our country is one of contrasts, a country where the health services are so arranged that while on one hand a sort of war is being waged, on the other hand the most sophisticated health services are being rendered, where one experiences every day the health problems caused by the development of civilization, pollution and the population explosion. I think that under these circumstances the department is rendering an outstanding service.

I do not think we can allow this opportunity to pass without mentioning that in the course of the year an extremely important development took place in this country, viz. the establishment of a national laboratory service. Before the time we had a fractionated service, because each province offered these services on its own. Under the chairmanship of the scientific adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister a commission of inquiry went into the matter and recommended that a national laboratory service be established, a service supported by the State and co-operating fully with the autonomous laboratory service of each university having a medical faculty. This co-ordinated service can only be of benefit to South Africa in the future. From this coordinated laboratory service services will be rendered on the curative level, the preventative level, the level of forensic medicine, the level of communicable diseases, the level of pollution of the environment, drugs control and the manufacture of vaccine. This is indeed an exceptional service that has been established.

The blood transfusion services were also constituted on a random basis. In a modern country like South Africa, with its modern health services, it was absolutely essential for us to rationalize the blood transfusion services as well, and that a blood fractionating service should also be developed in the process. There was only one province that had a fractionating service, and that was Natal.

The department wisely decided to make available an amount of R250 000 to Natal to extend this service so that the fractionated blood services could be available to the whole of the country. This was an exceptional service and an exceptional achievement. I cannot do otherwise than to mention the programmed objectives budget submitted to the House so that everyone who is the least bit interested in health services, can see precisely for what every cent of the funds voted by this House will be used. It is extremely informative.

It is also interesting to see to what extent the medical scheme, which is also governed by an Act of this department, has been extended, to such an extent that at present there is a total of 3 043 000 Whites and about 500 000 non-Whites—in total 3 543 000 persons in South Africa—already covered by sick funds, aid funds or provident funds in one respect or another at this stage. The total amount controlled by these funds is of the order of R250 million this year, which is an absolutely gigantic amount. If one considers that the total budget of the whole Department of Health, the budget from which it has to finance all its services, is an amount of about R120 million, one can see the significance of these sick funds as savings institutions in the financial world. One can make significant analyses of that. Unfortunately there is a fly in the ointment, and that is, that so many of my doctor colleagues have contracted out of this sick fund scheme. I want to make an appeal to them and to the hon. the Minister as well. The hon. the Minister must speak to these colleagues again. We must speak to these colleagues of ours. We amended the Act last year, more or less to suit their taste, to such an extent that they themselves can determine the proportion that has to be paid for services rendered. The Federal Council of the Medical Association can determine that itself. Only the tariff of fees is determined by a remuneration commission under the chairmanship of a judge. I believe that my colleagues are entitled to a good living and I even believe that some of them are entitled to become rich, but I would like to add to that that a health service that is so good and so expensive that it is beyond the means of the patient who needs it, is not worth much either.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Fauresmith for the support he has promised to my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, in regard to the future training of Bantu at the University of Natal Medical School. His promise is sincerely appreciated.

I now want to deal with certain aspects that arise from the estimates, but first I want to refer to the heading “Cancer” on page 21-6 of the estimates. Under that heading there are two comments. The first reads as follows—

An amount of R366 700 has been allocated for that. Immediately beneath that item, one finds the second item which reads as follows—

The contribution for that, however, is a mere R200, and to the best of my knowledge that amount has remained constant since 1953. Therefore, for more than 23 years the amount has remained constant at R200. I am led to believe that at the present value of money, an amount of R200 allocated in 1953 would be roughly equivalent to a present amount of R75. To put the matter in even simpler terms, I approached one of my agricultural colleagues. He explained the matter as follows. In 1953 he would have been able to buy five head of cattle for that amount of money, while today he would only get one animal. This is, in effect, the small amount of money that is being provided under this particular Vote for such a worthy and necessary cause as cancer guidance. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is time he approached his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, because he will find in the estimates of revenue tabled in this House today that R201 million is the expected amount to be collected in customs and excise on cigarettes and cigarette tobacco. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not persuade his colleague to spare a fraction of the extra R1 million of the R201 million to increase the amount of this subsidy, because the amount of excise collected since 1953 has increased sevenfold while this contribution to SANCA has remained static at R200.

Let me quote the National Cancer Association itself, however, the recipient of this magnificent donation. The association has addressed a petition as follows—

Let me say that the hon. the Minister of Health holds an important position in the Cabinet in this regard. I quote further—

I believe that the hon. the Minister should take cognizance of this. I refer him also to the publication Cancer News and an article “Smoking and Health” which appears in the April issue. The appeal, issued by the National Cancer Association, has been bolstered and encouraged by the College of Medicine of South Africa, which recently, as a result of a symposium, issued a report. On page 22 of the report the following is stated, inter alia—

I realize that the legislation which may be necessary would not fall under this hon. Minister’s portfolio, but this hon. Minister is a medical man. Is he not prepared to give his colleagues in the College of Medicine his support? Is he not prepared to urge his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to be a little more generous to the National Cancer Association of South Africa in the fight they are waging?

I now want to refer to the question of medical aid schemes, with particular reference to the access members of medical aid schemes have to provincial hospitals. Let me quote briefly the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Private Hospitals and Unattached Operating Theatre Units. On page 7 paragraph 1.4.1(3), I read—

The commission refers here to the demand for beds.

What effect does this have on the member of a medical aid fund? Such a member has the right to choose his own doctor. On the surface he appears to have the right to choose whether he should be treated in a provincial hospital or in a private hospital, but in practice he has very little choice in this respect because of the shortage of beds to which my hon. colleague, the member for Rossettenville, referred. The only alternative such a member has is a private nursing home. Here again I feel that I should draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the report of the commission. On page 18, paragraph 7.1.2, I read—

I believe that this position could well befall some of the members of medical aid societies who are near the end of their benefits. I want to quote two examples of where this, in my opinion, is effecting hardship on the medical aid fund and also on the members of the medical aid fund. The first case I wish to quote concerns a woman who required orthopaedic manipulation. She entered a private nursing home and the whole procedure took 2½ hours. The specialist’s charge was approximately R14—I am quoting round figures—and the anaesthetist’s charge was R26, but the private nursing home to which she was admitted at 13h00 and from which she was discharged at 15h30 charged R12 for accommodation, R30 for a theatre fee, R3 for five minutes in the recovery room and more than R3 for theatre drugs. The total procedure cost just on R90. However, had that patient been able to get a bed in a provincial hospital, her cost would have been—for the specialist, R14; for the anaesthetist, R26; and the day’s care in the provincial hospital would have cost her R8,50. In other words, her medical aid fund would have been required to pay approximately R50 as against R90 in a private nursing home.

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

I am sorry, but I do not have time to reply to a question.

There is another case where a person required surgery. The person went to a general practitioner who recommended a surgeon. The general practitioner’s fee was R4, the orthopaedic surgeon who carried out the operation but who indicated that he would not be available to perform the operation in a provincial hospital charged R81. The anaesthetist charged R26 and the radiologist who carried out the previous X-ray examination charged R18. This is what the private nursing home charged: Theatre fee for 15 minutes in the theatre, R30; recovery room fee, R3; theatre drugs, R15; pharmacy, R1; ward dressings, R2,60; and private ward accommodation for a period from 08h00 to 17h00 the same day, R23. The overall cost to the medical aid fund plus the contribution by the member therefore amounted to R205. But when one comes to compare the same procedure in a provincial hospital, while cost for a private ward would be R8,50 and the cost of the general practitioner, orthopaedic surgeon, anaesthetist and radiologist would be the same and there would have been a saving of R65 in that procedure.

Mr. Chairman, when I sat down a few moments ago, I had been addressing a plea to my colleagues in the medical profession. I want to make it very clear indeed that it should please not be seen as a threat. This is a plea to my colleagues. I call it a plea, because the Medical Schemes Act was amended after numerous discussions had been conducted with the Medical Association and after the amendments had been agreed upon. Therefore I think that the Federal Council of the Medical Association is under an obligation, not to me nor to the Minister, but to the patients of this country and all the members of sick funds, to go out of its way—I repeat: to go out of its way—to try to persuade those members to join the sick funds again, to contract in again. I know that representations have been made that the sick funds should make direct payments to persons who have contracted out. It would be a pity if that were to happen, and I shall tell you why. The doctor who is paid directly is thereby given the chance of selecting his patients one after the other and may only impose the sick fund tariff on those whom he is afraid will cause him to suffer a loss, in order that payment may be made to him directly. These doctors who have contracted out of the sick fund system get an unfair advantage over the members of such funds. I again want to make an appeal to them, and let me repeat that this is no threat, but that it is only in the interests of the patients in South Africa.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. House. I said right at the outset that we have an exceptional health service in this country. I think that from now on we shall have to think radically about harnessing our health team in such a way that we shall be able to continue rendering all the services that have to be rendered. The members of the medical profession throughout the world have a particular contribution to make towards the development of their own profession, to the improvement of their own profession. When the profession expanded to such an extent that paramedical services had to be established, the medical practitioners took the lead. In this way several of these paramedical services came into being, and these services will have to continue to improve in order that they may take more and more services off the doctor’s shoulders, so that a good health service may be provided in South Africa. I think we shall find that the nurse will most probably have to play a greater role in the future. I am convinced, and I have said it in this House in the past, that the pharmacist has a greater role to play than he is playing at the moment. I cannot see why a scientist should be trained for four years and then be used—and they will understand when I say this—just to count out pills. I believe that the pharmacist has a greater duty in the health set-up. It is important that all these various health services should be integrated. It is important that this team should co-operate within one health service and support one another. Now we find, and especially in the rural areas, that there is some dissension in this team. We find that doctors practising in the rural areas are in actual fact keeping pharmacists away there because they run their own pharmacies. I am not alleging that they are acting illegally or improperly. In terms of a doctor’s registration as a medical practitioner it is his right to do something like that. In order to enable doctors to render better services, however, we need more radical thinking. Therefore it is necessary that pharmacists should be drawn to the rural areas and to other places where there is a need for their services. There is no doubt that there is a need for their services.

Now I may be asked whether it is really of special importance. I can only refer to my own experience. I have already received representations from the rural areas of the Free State on three occasions this year. I found to my regret that some doctors were running such large pharmacies that they could not manage everything themselves. As a result they had to make use of ordinary nurses and of clerks to render a pharmaceutical service. I do not want to argue that doctors should be forbidden to dispense, but I am certainly of the opinion that it is up to the Medical Association to take the hand of their other partner in the team and to walk the road together with him.

I can quote a few more very interesting figures. About 900 000 Coloureds live on the Cape Flats and elsewhere in the Cape Peninsula. They are served by 19 pharmacies, of which 17 are either wholly or partly owned by Coloureds; at least staffed or managed by Coloureds.

There are 28 doctors practising amongst those Coloureds. Those doctors are estimated to see approximately 500 or 600 patients daily. I regret to have to mention that this number of pharmacies together deal with about 40 to 50 prescriptions daily. What happens to all the other prescriptions? Possibly they go to pharmacies outside the area; something that seems unlikely to me. Possibly the patients can also obtain some of their requirements from general stores or from other similar entrepreneurs, or they can be served by their own doctor. But I leave the matter there. It is a serious problem.

We have a great need of Coloured pharmacists in South Africa. However, if there are so many Coloured pharmacists here in the Western Cape—persons who hardly make a living and only do so with great difficulty—how can it be expected that prospective pharmacists will apply to the training centre for further training? The greatest encouragement for prospective pharmacists should come from persons practising in that profession themselves.

I should like to repeat the appeal to the Medical Association to make available all possible assistance—and I am sure they will do so—to the hon. the Minister of Health and his Secretary. This problem must be solved. We must take each other by the hand. There is room for all of us within the framework of the health services of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because he touched upon a local trade union matter—if one may put it in that way. I know that doctors and pharmacists are well organized, and I am sure they will be able to thrash out the matter.

†First of all, I should like to congratulate the department on its annual report and particularly its report on family planning. I think it is a big step forward, because there are useful statistics in it and it is certainly the best family planning coverage that we have had in an annual report for as long as I have been in Parliament. If the hon. the Leader of the House wants to look it up, it is on page 31. There is also a very pleasing increase of 30% in the funds which, even allowing for the ravages of inflation, shows that the department is growing every year. There has also been a 90% increase in the attendances at clinics between December 1974 and December 1975. Unfortunately, no fall-out rate in attendance is given. I believe the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do—the hon. member for Carletonville, who is not in the House at the moment, would agree with me—that our family planning at the moment is but a drop in the ocean and that there is a great deal more to be done. In fact, I would say that at this stage our family planning programme is still hopelessly inadequate, although I believe that it is moving as fast as the hon. the Minister is prepared to let it move towards adequacy.

Our population explosion is basically being caused by mortality rates which have fallen drastically and very swiftly. The normal socio-economic development which would come and which one would associate with these improved health facilities reducing our mortality rate has unfortunately not come in this country as fast as we would have liked it to come. There are three reasons for this. The first of these is the Government’s policy of migratory labour. It is an accepted fact, and I do not think anyone can object to the fact, that a man who sees his wife once or twice a year is perhaps not going to be sympathetic towards family planning. Most of our mission hospitals have a big baby bulge every September after the Christmas visits. The second reason is that we still have a relatively high infant mortality rate amongst our lower income groups. This results in people being cautious about having small families, because they are frightened that they will lose children. The third reason is that we have poor family planning services in our rural areas and homelands. I endeavoured, during this session, to obtain some information from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but he did not give me any. I also corresponded with the Secretary for Health in the Transkei, but I got a smart brush-off from him when I tried to obtain statistics. I think it is because he simply does not have any.

Another problem is—if we look at the report and the replies to some of the questions I have tabled—that there is not really enough being done in providing a service in this regard. I do not think it requires much more than Std. III arithmetic to work out that 3 million condoms do not go very far in terms of family planning. We also have no figures in regard to vasectomies, and the number of contraceptive pills that have been supplied has declined by 20% to 4,5 million this year. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be prepared to comment on that, unless he has decided to switch the form of family planning to some other technique. I mention these rather frank statistics in the House not to create offence, but because I believe that the matter of family planning ought to be brought into the open. I believe our society should be frank about it, that we should accept the fact that we have a serious population explosion and that all our people ought to know what family planning is, how to apply it and how necessary it is for our welfare and economic development.

In December 1975 860 000 women attended family planning clinics. That does not tell us how many are actually on family planning. There are, however, approximately 5 million women of child-bearing age in South Africa. It is essential that these women, particularly in the fertile age group between the ages of 17 and 25, should be applying family planning. It does not really help if they start after the fifth child or when they are in their thirties. That is why I believe that our target is rather low at the moment. It is also a matter for concern that only 84 motivators and educators were trained last year. This is a decrease of 20%. Until family planning is an accepted fact as it is in our White community, we have to emphasize education, motivation and training. Once a community has accepted family planning and once a generation has applied family planning, then one finds it established in the community and one then needs relatively little motivation after that, apart from the provision of the service. However, at this stage we have to provide a really good motivation. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he does something which is, in fact, a little revolutionary for a Government department, except in the case of the campaign against inflation, and that is to employ a top advertising agency and give them an account of R100 000 or R200 000 a year to sell and to motivate family planning. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that we now hear family planning advertisements over the radio and that at some of our agricultural shows we have family planning stalls. I believe that family planning should be taken to the people where they are.

We have not had any indication of a definite policy from the hon. the Minister, except that it is aimed to involve 1,4 million women in family planning by 1980. He is doing very well if, by 1975, 800 000 women were involved. We should like to know which category of women this entails. If it is women between the ages of 18 and 24, then it is a most significant goal, but if it is merely 1,4 million women, then unfortunately I do not believe that we are going fast enough. What is the hon. the Minister’s aim? Is it zero population growth? Does he want to limit children to three per family? I believe the hon. the Minister has to give us a policy. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister, he said that no fixed formula existed and that new services were established where a demand was created for such services. But how is it decided that a demand has been created? Who does the planning? I believe this is a matter which must receive our attention. I do not think the hon. the Minister need fear any criticism from anybody in the House in regard to the question of family planning. We are all agreed, White, Black, Coloured and Indian—not necessarily all, but most—that family planning and our population growth is a very serious problem. I am sorry that the hon. member for Carletonville is not here to support me in his bass tones.

I should like to encourage the hon. the Minister to spend much more money on this. I believe the hon. the Minister could make a strong case for this. He is getting the Department of Health geared up, and he has laid the foundation for good development in this regard. I believe that the hon. the Minister could press for an increase in the health budget of more than 30% next year, because now that the ground work has been done and he has the key personnel, I am sure he can take off at a much faster rate. I can assure the hon. the Minister that he will have the whole-hearted support of this side of the House if he does this.

In conclusion I should like to deal with the Abortion and Sterilization Act. I believe it is much too early for us to come to any assessment of the application of this Act. One needs to give it at least two to three years to see what the effect is going to be. There are, of course, a few people who would like to oppose it without giving it a chance, but I believe that we have to see how it works. I believe it is basically a good Act. We may, as the hon. the Minister has said, have to make a few alterations, but until we get better results I do not think we can do anything. However, I should like to draw one point to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and that is that more abortions have been carried out under the mental health section than all other abortions put together. I would remind the hon. the Minister that this section has been the favourite loophole in other countries of those who require abortion on demand. Some psychiatrists will, in fact, use the distress of a woman over the fact that she has become pregnant without expecting to, as a prima facie reason for allowing an abortion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to detract from what the hon. member for Pinetown said. I know that he is going to appear on a television programme tonight. Then we shall hear what else he has to say about the Abortion Act. However, I want to tell the hon. member that he must not confuse family planning with birth control. Family planning has one basic factor which stands out amongst all other factors and statistics and that is the acceptance of responsibility. This is what family planning is based upon.

In the light of everything which has happened this year, I think that we should pay attention to the role of the Department of Health as far as health services in the Bantu homelands are concerned. According to the World Health Organization, health is defined as a state of complete physical, spiritual and social well-being and not only the absence of sickness or deficiency. In any nation’s development towards self-determination it is this facet for which it must accept responsibility in the first place. The results of this approach can in fact be fully grasped, if we note that the Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Lebowa have already accepted full responsibility for the health services of their own people. In my opinion too much emphasis is laid upon the concept “make healthy” in contrast to the concept “keep healthy”. It is quite in order to ask how many doctors there are, as hon. members on the other side have done. It is also in order to ask how many nurses, hospitals and facilities there are, but that on its own is half a question. At the same time one also has to ask how many diseases are present, whether the diseases have decreased or increased, whether certain diseases still occur and whether contagious diseases are still experienced, whether the trends as regards tuberculosis, for example, are favourable or otherwise, etc. One must also take the population growth into consideration before one can form an idea of a nation’s state of health. In the past, health care in the Bantu homelands as well as in the whole country was primarily the responsibility of the State. It was the State’s responsibility to take contagious diseases as well as psychiatric diseases under its wing. The provinces, too, ran certain health services and certain health services were entrusted to the local authorities. Missionary societies handled certain facets of the health services in the homelands, and to a large extent the Bantu had his own witch-doctors and medicine men. Each, therefore, had its well-defined sphere and as a result of these different facets, no amalgamation of health services took place. However, what is most important is that the Bantu himself, in his own community, whether in the city or anywhere else, never had a share in the health services. I should like to pay tribute, not only to the department, but also to the missionary societies, especially the churches, who played an immense role as far as health services in the homelands are concerned. Last week we saw that the Dutch Reformed Church handed over 11 churches to the Transkeian Government in the Transkei and we cannot say enough about what our mission doctors accomplished among the Bantu communities in the past. The hospital-oriented approach which was introduced by the Department of Bantu Administration, for which the Department of Health accepts responsibility, is in my opinion the best point of departure from which to establish a comprehensive service. We can say with pride that 108 of those hospitals have already been established in the homelands. Those 108 hospitals in the homelands have a capacity of 33 600 registered beds, which borders on the normal according to the norm of the World Health Organization. They require four beds for every 1 000 persons.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Sir, when we adjourned I was speaking on the 108 hospitals that already exist in the Bantu homelands. In addition to those 108 hospitals, the Department of Health has erected clinics at strategic places throughout the homelands. At the moment there are 503 of these clinics, and according to the findings of the World Health Organization, there should be one clinic for every 10 000 inhabitants. That is the ideal set-up. As far as South Africa and Bantu homelands are concerned, it is 0,9, i.e. very close to the ideal. These clinics are centered there and manned by the people themselves. Every clinic has a trained Bantu nurse; there are also health guidance officers, midwives and medical visitors. All preventive work is done at those clinics, for example immunization against contagious diseases. Antenatal care and health education is also provided to the community in collaboration with the person in control of that clinic. This is the most important facet, and I want to congratulate the Department of Health on having succeeded in making so much progress in these few years that the Bantu throughout South Africa can be given a personal service by their own people. There is no doubt that as far as health, and personal health education in particular, is concerned, it is of the utmost importance that the best guidance can be obtained from one’s own people who know one, know one’s life-style, one’s traditions, one’s customs and manner of expression. It is they who win the goodwill of the community and guide them to a better standard of health. For our part we can only help to create the necessary facilities, inter alia, by building clinics and hospitals. Permit me just to furnish some data. Over the past five years in the Bantu homelands alone, capital expenditure has been R44 million.

The budget for the internal handling of Bantu homelands health services, rose from R34¼ million in 1970 to R71 million in the latest budget. It has therefore doubled within five years. However, this has been crowned in that a ceiling has been placed upon these foundations. Unfortunately the Opposition did not agree with the founding of the Medical University of Southern Africa. There the Bantu can now train their own people in their own sphere in order to allow the level of medicine to filter through from above throughout the Bantu homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brentwood has concentrated very largely on the health services in the homelands. I shall return to that in a few moments. I want to say right away that because we in these benches voted against the Bill providing for a medical hospital, it does not mean that we are not concerned or interested, and I particularly want to support the words spoken by the hon. member for Rosettenville earlier when he talked about the need to maintain the medical school in Durban, despite the fact that we are extending and building other medical schools elsewhere. We made that point very clearly during an earlier debate and I simply want to underline that.

In terms of the recent accusations made against mental homes, we have again made our own situation very clear and we certainly will not give and have never given patronage to any organization which seems to seek to undermine these services. [Interjections.] It is quite true that certain Senators have spoken at conferences organized by this group, but may I just say that the conference which was organized by this organization was opened by councillor J. J. Oberholzer, M.P.C., who still belongs to the UP. It was attended also by a senior officer of the Department of Social Welfare.

But I want to come back to something which was sent to us by the Secretary for Health, Dr. De Beer, an article which he wrote called “A Forward View of Health Services in South Africa”. I want to say immediately that I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the Secretary for Health for a quite excellent and outstanding piece of work in this article. I will return to that in a moment. I believe that some of the points he makes there are of tremendous importance for health services in South Africa.

I want to focus this evening, in the brief time I have, on the whole problem of malnutrition in South Africa. Dr. Sam Fehrsen of the Hans Snyckers Institute of the University of Pretoria put it very dramatically and graphically when he said that more South Africans died of malnutrition every year than were killed in road accidents. He based that statement on certain statistics issued by the Department of Statistics, which, I presume, still belongs to Government agencies and therefore the members on my left should listen very carefully to this. [Interjections.] This document of May 1974 gives the number of Coloured children, under five years of age, who died from malnutrition during the period 1968 to 1971 as 2 277, i.e. 569 per year. In the same period, 23 752 children died from gastro-enteritis, or almost 6 000 per annum. The article goes on to say that if we accept that only 50% of deaths from gastro-enteritis are caused by malnutrition, we get a round figure of 3 500 deaths a year from malnutrition. I am referring only to the Coloured population. If the death rate of Black children is assumed to be the same as that of Coloureds, although it is of course much higher, an estimated 24 000 Black children a year die from malnutrition. These are facts and figures from the Department of Statistics itself, and all I am trying to do is to emphasize the urgency of the problem and to tap the root causes of malnutrition in South Africa. The causes are not only of concern to the medical profession, but are also obviously socio-economic and political. I believe that the solution, or one of the major solutions, to this is a co-ordinated interdepartmental and interdisciplinary nutrition policy for the nation. Here I was very interested to note in the article by the Secretary for Health, on page 435, that he says that an example of a highly complex problem area in respect of which we still have a long way to go and which undoubtedly calls for a more co-ordinated approach is the field of nutritional services.

I think this is absolutely essential if South Africa is going to be serious in attempting to tackle a major source of concern, illness and death in South Africa. I believe that at the heart of this co-ordinated service the basic aim ought to be education towards self-help, because in the final analysis, if we do not achieve that, no matter how much else we do, we will not be able to make any real dent into this major problem. I believe that of the major approaches, factors, guide-lines and objectives of this co-ordinated council the first ought to be facilities for admitting all children with malnutrition to hospitals. At the moment those facilities do not exist for all children and I believe that we must emphasize that.

No, that is not true.

Yes, it is true.

No, I am sorry, it is not correct.

Then you are going right against the research done by doctors in the Ciskei, who have looked at this matter very carefully and have found that there are simply not enough facilities. I am not saying there are no facilities. I am just saying that we must make sure that there are enough facilities for all children. Secondly, there must be accommodation, not necessarily very expensive accommodation, but suitable accommodation for lengthy hospitalization in certain cases. There must also be informed social services where the emphasis will be on interviews, information and guaranteed after-care. To follow up on remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Pinetown, I believe also that we have got to be ruthlessly honest in driving towards contraceptive counselling and easy availability of contraception measures, always bearing in mind that the finest contraception is not necessarily that which is manufactured and made, but rather a stable society and the best home and opportunities for the people concerned.

I believe that there ought to be free and heavily subsidized milk supplies to help towards the relieving of malnutrition. I believe that there must be institutional care for children who cannot safely return to their homes, and in this co-ordinated interdisciplinary council there must be home industries.

I want to say one last thing, and that is that I believe that the Department of Health has an enormous responsibility and opportunity to bring this about. I believe that the time is ripe and that the time is urgent. Whilst they are doing this, I wonder if they could look at two other things which they have started already, and, as it were, inject some new life or movement into these two areas. Firstly, there are the milk powder schemes begun in 1962, but never really—to use the Secretary for Health’s own words—utilized on the scale intended by the department. I believe that we simply have to give more attention to this. Then there is the whole question of the fortifying of maize-meal. The decision to fortify maize-meal was first discussed, I think, in the early ’50s, but only became actual policy of the Government in 1973. We still seem to be battling through committees, officialdom and perhaps, in some instances, vested interests. Here I believe that the private sector must assume its responsibility as well. Why cannot a consortium take over the production and the nation-wide marketing, which is so vital for this, of a PVM supplement which could be available for all deprived, if you like, or poor people throughout our country? Here the department must take the initiative as well.

I have tried to emphasize in the few minutes at my disposal the need for a new approach, an urgent approach, to tackle one of our major problem areas in health, viz. the problem of malnutrition which is still to be found in many parts of South Africa. It needs the co-operation of all sections of the population and particularly the drive and initiative of this department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands made a speech about a very delicate matter. I have always believed that if there is one department with whose vote one must not play politics, it is the department whose vote is under discussion at the moment. However, that hon. member spoke about malnutrition in a manner which in my opinion was very unfortunate in some respects.

He is irresponsible, after all.

Yes, he spoke about it in an irresponsible manner. What the hon. member in fact did, was merely to refer to the existing situation. However, what he failed to do was to point out two aspects. The first is that the basic reasons for the malnutrition which exists, are to be found in the traditions of the people among whom the malnutrition exists. According to those traditions, the food which was made available for preventing malnutrition was not channelled to the children, but ended up in the stomachs of people who did not really need it so much. This is the one point. However, he did not say this. All he really did was to point a finger and level accusations.

However, there is also a second aspect. The Department of Health and its people do a great deal to prevent this unfortunate evil or to abolish it where it does exist. In fact, therefore, that hon. member should have expressed appreciation here towards the department for what it is doing in this respect. However, he omitted to do so. I am sure that the hon. Minister will nevertheless furnish an adequate reply to his comments. Since that hon. member did however omit to do so, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister and the department for the amounts spent in an attempt to stamp out these conditions.

In the few minutes at my disposal, however, I also want to speak on another matter. Half a century ago, the life expectancy of man in general was approximately 55 years. Today the life expectancy is already more than 70 years. This increasing life expectancy arose in spite of many dangers and in spite of many situations which arose but which were eliminated as a result of the advancement and progress in a variety of spheres. The successes achieved have in many cases been in the field of medicine. It has also been the result of the improvement of health education services and sanitation and the availability of preventive medicines, immunization, etc. Somewhere in this development—and I stress the word “somewhere”—the nurse came into the picture. In the past the nurse was seen in many respects merely as someone with two hands who had to provide certain physical services. However, the poet rightly says the following about the nurse—

The importance of her role, in my opinion, can never be sufficiently emphasized. In spite of the fact that this is the case, in my opinion far too little attention is given to her training and preparation for this great task, a task which she accepts with the greatest sincerity. In this country not enough attention is given to the training aspect of nursing. I do not think we are doing nearly enough in that respect. I think we still have a long way to go as far as the nurse’s training and preparation is concerned, and one thinks involuntarily of the problems experienced as regards the training of nurses. I do not have enough time tonight to go into this in detail, but recent experience has shown us that in the training of a nurse, especially in the theoretical sphere, problems are experienced with physiology and anatomy.

Because problems do exist, a great deal of wastage takes place because many of the young girls who apply for training as nurses give up their training due to the problems they experience with physiology and anatomy. There are many reasons for this. In the nature of the matter we must take note of the reasons, and amongst those reasons are the following: A lack of knowledge and background as far as physiology is concerned because not enough is done in our schools to make pupils aware of the necessity for studying biology and also, where possible, physiology, for their matriculation examination. Another problem of which we must take note is that insufficient textbooks are available for these girls in their mother tongue. There is a particularly acute shortage of text-books available in Afrikaans in the two subjects to which I referred. We shall also have to look at the examination system as we know it today. Recently the president of the Nurses’ Council deemed it necessary to say the following in public—

We must ask ourselves whether so far we have not devoted too much attention to stressing factual knowledge. She went on to say—

When we speak of the problems experienced in the training of nurses, this must be considered. There must be sympathy for these problems in order to try and find a solution. I can say with the greatest conviction that as far as the Nursing Council is concerned, thorough attention is being given at the moment to the whole question of the examining of nurses.

In spite of the fact that initiative has been shown by that body in order to afford relief, I think that further aid should also be forthcoming from the department. When I say this, I must say in the same breath that there is also a great deal of appreciation among the nurses—I want to underline the fact that there is very great appreciation—for the assistance which is being given by the department in respect of this matter.

However, there is also another aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the fact that the Van Wyk de Vries Commission which undertook an inquiry into the universities, devoted very little attention to the matter of the training of nurses in spite of the fact that the commission said—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not give us an indication as to how he feels on this matter. Does he not wish to spell out his policy in respect of the matter which was mentioned by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. However, talking will not be enough; urgent attention will also have to be given to this question.

There is also another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It concerns the question of maternity services. For very good reasons it has become customary that the public itself choose that confinements take place in a hospital. The doctors also prefer this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I intend addressing the hon. the Minister on the question of tuberculosis in South Africa. In doing so, I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to a great son of South Africa, a person who, since we last discussed this Vote in this House, has passed away. I refer to Dr. Basil Dormer, who for many years was the Chief Tuberculosis Officer of the Republic of South Africa. Dr. Dormer achieved international fame and brought great credit to South Africa in the field of tuberculosis. He was acknowledged in all parts of the world as one of the great experts and one of the greatest contributors to investigations, about the cause and treatment of tuberculosis and endeavours to try to eradicate it. So much so, Sir, that I am aware of certain thoughts that have been expressed about him by various people with whom he had so much to do. It has been said that South Africa was indeed blessed to have had so brilliant and dedicated a son grappling with enthusiasm what was the country’s gravest health problem. He achieved tremendous things in this country. One of the things for which the organization to which I belong—Santa—is very grateful is that he was instrumental in effecting the large-scale involvement with full State subsidy of mission hospitals and the Santa organization with its 34 settlements in which they provided beds when the need was very urgent 25 years ago.

Dr. Dormer influenced young doctors to make a career of the less popular and less financial rewarding field of tuberculosis. He undoubtedly left his mark in no mean manner on public health in the Republic of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

The Santa organization intends commemorating the memory of Dr. Dormer by instituting an annual Dormer Memorial Lecture. I would very much like to suggest, for the consideration of the hon. the Minister, that when the opportunity occurs a commemorative stamp should be issued bearing a picture of Dr. Dormer as a mark of the country’s appreciation for his contribution in this field of endeavour. Tuberculosis is still something which we have not finally conquered and is still of epidemic proportions.

In an extract from this excellent paper to which reference was made, the paper delivered by the Secretary for Health at the Jubilee Congress of the Medical Association in July last year, he stated—

In this particular field—and I need hardly remind the hon. the Minister of it, because he was responsible for it—where we still have 50 000 additional cases added per year to the list of tuberculosis cases in this country, the compulsory application of BCG vaccine was instituted in 1973, when it was made mandatory for all newly-born children to be vaccinated against tuberculosis before reaching the age of six months. There are 600 000 births in the Republic every year and there are therefore 600 000 newly-born children to be vaccinated annually. In addition, in the light of the fact that vaccination outside the maternity home and other hospitals where children are born, has been very sporadic, it may be anticipated that some two million children under the age of school-going will still await their first vaccination against tuberculosis. It is calculated that in all probability there are upwards of three million children in the country today awaiting vaccination. We realize the problems which face South Africa with regard to the question of staff, nursing staff, medical staff and even paramedical staff, in order to deal with this problem. Therefore, there has been a trend in the world with which we are falling into line, a trend towards the preventive and immunization work as the major objective, without diminishing the treatment aspect. Nevertheless, instead of considering the actual discovery and treating of cases, one should rather immunize as many people as possible, and thus stretch funds available as far as possible. I am very happy and very proud to say that the Santa organization, which came to the assistance of the department, has done some valuable and yeoman work in this field.

I would also like to point out something quite interesting which has been discovered in Japan. The cost benefit of BCG vaccination can best be illustrated by the findings in Japan. It cost $32 million for BCG vaccination, but $1 086 000 000 was saved by decreasing the number of patients. It costs South Africa plus minus 6c to vaccinate one child, against the tremendous cost treatment of one case. Japan believes BCG vaccination has saved 4 million people over the last 20 years. Therefore, I hardly need to press home this point. I am sure the hon. the Minister is as well, if not better, aware of it than I am, that, where we find that we are unfortunately subjected to limitations of funds, we must try to spread immunization as far as we possibly can, hoping that by doing so, we can bring down the figures. Finally, when we have some measure of control in hand, we can proceed with this very important and vital aspect of discovering fresh cases, of finding the source of the new cases and of treating them, thereby ensuring that South Africa can eventually control this particular problem.

I may say that Santa has done a tremendous amount of field work on behalf of the department, and it is presently engaged in field work in 11 different districts in the Free State, involving some 500 000 Black and White children. In this way Santa has already—during the six months or so during which this operation has been going on—brought some 6 000 children under protective treatment.

The plea that I want to lodge with the hon. the Minister, is that he must try to ensure that, with the limited funds he has, as much as possible be diverted towards this particular objective. Where an institution like Santa is able to assist the department to overcome its problem of the lack of personnel and other paramedical services, it should be ensured that the necessary money be made available to Santa. In other words, there should be no question of cutting any subsidies. There should be no question in this particular field of placing any limitation on the activities of Santa. I feel that a very vital part has been played—and I do not know whether this hon. House is aware of it—by many pilot schemes which have been established by Santa in numerous municipalities throughout the country with the objective of ensuring that children under the age of six months, as well as older children, are immunized in order to try to make it possible eventually to control this particular disease. This is a pursuit in which Santa was engaged from the beginning at its own cost. Santa subsequently received the very warm co-operation of the department enabling it to proceed with a certain amount of subsidies.

The ideal situation really is—as the hon. the Minister probably knows too—that not only should the child be vaccinated with BCG between the ages of four months and six months, but a further booster must also be administered when the child goes to school, and he should even receive a still further booster when he is about to leave school. In this way continuation can be maintained and every possibility can be created to save the child from this infectious disease or from a recurrence, should the child have suffered it at any time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe stated a case here which definitely deserves attention, because it is very important. I want to confine myself to another aspect, namely family planning. Today the world is very worried about the population explosion and it is even being described as an alarming increase in the number of human beings, the reproduction of people out of proportion to the possible. A great deal of pressure is being exerted on, among other things, living space, raw materials, resources, provision of services, provision of food, education, etc. If we consider the population growth of the world, then we find that in the year 1900 there were 1 500 million people, in 1960 there were already 2 518 million people, and at present the figure is calculated at 4 000 million people, which will reach the 8 000 million mark by the end of the century. Among this population at the moment there are 800 million illiterates and this gives us an indication of the condition of the world, apart from the famine problem. World reports indicate that attempts at family planning are being applied more effectively in countries where the general process of development is already relatively advanced. It is pointed out to us that the opposite is also true, namely that in proportion as family planning is applied effectively, the economic growth and development become easier. The International Parenthood Planning Federation thinks that family planning is necessary in times of prosperity and vital in difficult times. In many countries steps are being taken to control and combat the rate of population increase. Then, too, the emphasis falls on population control. In South Africa, since the introduction of family planning in 1974, we have a more positive, better and efficient approach, namely an approach of responsible parenthood, according to which the married couple themselves decide on the number of children they want and how to space them. Many terms are used to describe family planning, inter alia, family regulation, responsible parenthood, planned parenthood, fertility control or fertility regulation, prophylaxis, contraception, etc. All these words mean the same thing, namely man’s desire not to leave the arrival of children to chance. South Africa’s approach is more positive, namely responsible parenthood. In order to prevent unwanted births, the approach is always responsible parenthood and not population control, as is the case in many other countries. Every married couple has a free choice in respect of the number and spacing of their children.

The issue here is not only limiting, but also promoting fertility, where possible. Clinic facilities are offered for people who are unable to have children. Since we in South Africa consider it the responsibility of the parent, it is an educational task for us and therefore we have only an educational task to perform in this respect.

That is why I can only congratulate the department and thank it for what it has already achieved. I also want to thank all the communication media, inter alia, the radio, television, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, brochures and societies which concern themselves with these matters, local authorities, doctors, nurses and everyone concerned. The reasons for unchecked human reproduction all centre around a single concept, namely ignorance. I refer to a few reasons for this: Poor socio-economic conditions; a reckless attitude in respect of the population increase—this is nothing less than irresponsibility; certain religious convictions which clash with reality; living together; and, in the case of lesser developed nations, the subordination of the woman to the man.

I should like to make a suggestion. Perhaps it will be worth while to take a look at it. Since it is an educational task, I am of the opinion that more attention should be devoted to information, guidance and motivation. The responsibility of the parent must always be emphasized. Not only the material facilities and the physical care of children, but also the spiritual, namely the care, attention and love which children need, should always serve as motivation. Mobile clinics ought to be extended. There should be extensive courses—the department already offers courses of this type—but I feel that these courses could perhaps also be offered by voluntary workers who work at large industrial complexes in order to reach the people there, furnish them with guidance and motivate them. In the case of the developing person who has not advanced very far socio-economically, it is of no avail to reach the woman alone. The men, too, must be reached, because one has the problem that in many of those cases the woman is subordinate to the man. I am very sure that many volunteers will come to the fore to offer their services. If they are properly trained and the matter is handled correctly, they should be able to make a major contribution. School principals and teachers, especially those involved in secondary education, ought to attend these courses in order to be trained so that they too can make their contribution. I am not speaking of sex education now; I do not believe that there should be sex education at school level. I am now speaking of responsible parenthood, aspects of which could be incorporated in some school subject or other.

I am grateful to be able to say that the department’s expenditure on family planning rose from R2 788 000 in 1973-’74, to R4 087 000 in 1974-’75. My final point is that I hope it will never happen that abortion will be used for the purposes of family planning. I do not believe it is the correct thing to do. One can motivate family planning and say why it is necessary. One has moral grounds on which one can defend it, but abortion cannot be defended as a family planning measure.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Hercules and Pinetown have both spoken about family planning. In this respect both of them have made positive contributions to this debate. The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about malnutrition. I believe there is a definite link between malnutrition and family planning. The hon. the Minister of Health is responsible for the health of 22 million South Africans, and in 25 years’ time he will probably be responsible for the health of some 50 million South Africans.

The problem today, as the hon. the Minister knows, is vast. It is a difficult and intricate problem and in terms of the population we will have in the year 2000, the problem may very well be an impossible one if one takes into consideration what the effects of food shortages and the consequent malnutrition and starvation will be at that time. I would like to remind hon. members that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture very recently said that in South Africa there were thousands of people who are starving today. If you look at Africa you will see that the per capita production of food is dropping by 2% per annum. In a world with a population of 3 000 million people, if all the available food today was divided equally among the people, we would all be underfed. That is the problem, and against that background we must look at family planning.

I think that there are a number of factors which we must consider. The first is the increase in cost and the increasing scarcity of fertilizer, the rapid exhaustion of nonrenewable resources, the destruction of the viability of the soil due to over-exploitation and soil erosion, the steady destruction of the ocean as a producer of protein and the fact that the world’s fresh water supplies, certainly in South Africa, will be utilized to the full within the next 30 years. In North America, the so-called prairie grain basket, will not be able to feed the teeming millions of the world for very much longer.

What can mankind therefore expect in the year 2000? Some time just before or after the year 2000 the world is going to experience a catastrophe when all these factors culminate.

By the year 2000 unless something is done about the exploding population of the world 1 000 million people could die as a result of the culmination of these factors. There are two simple questions we must ask ourselves. Firstly, can something be done about the situation? The answer is “yes”. Secondly, are we doing what has to be done about the situation? The answer to that question is “no”. What we should be doing is to design and institute a comprehensive and effective national population policy for all the people of South Africa aimed at the achievement of a zero growth rate or preferably a negative population growth rate and I want to make it clear, because of its significance, irrespective of the cost of achieving that objective. Every underfed, maladjusted, anti-social person that this country will have to sustain and cope with by the year 2000 will be costing us at least R100 for the R1 which it will cost today to prevent the birth of such a person.

Prof. S. P. Cilliers said recently at the population conference which was held a month ago—

It is not that the scheme is not good, because the scheme is good. It is not that the personnel are not competent or dedicated, because they are. It is not that the funds are being wasted, because they are not being wasted. It is simply that insufficient funds are invested in the achievement of the objectives. The funds invested must be increased. The hon. member for Pinetown called for a 30% increase. There should be many more competent trained staff and many more people must be contacted in order to show much better results than we are showing at the moment.

The hon. the Minister must set his mind to the achievement of the following goals. Firstly, he must formulate a national population policy and this policy must not be something standing on its own but must be an integral component of a master plan for the social, economic, cultural, moral and political advancement of all the people of South Africa. I want to emphasize that, it has to be an integral part of a plan for the social, economic, cultural, moral and political advancement of all the people of South Africa. The second thing that is required is that the hon. the Minister must see to it, by bringing pressure to bear in the Cabinet, that he is supplied with adequate funds to meet all the requirements of such a policy. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister must make use of every communication medium available in this country. The hon. member for Pinetown congratulated the hon. the Minister on the use of the radio. Television is, however, available to us today as well as many other communication media. The informing and motivation of the public will lead to success both by means of communication through the communication media and by face to face and door to door communication. Fourthly, the hon. the Minister must heed the advice of Prof. Snyman of the University of the Western Cape, who said that legislation regulating child labour and compulsory schooling for all children would have to be applied scrupulously in South Africa if the population growth rate were to be limited. Fifthly, the hon. the Minister must involve all the social, educational, cultural, Governmental and religious organizations in South Africa. Family planning cannot work on its own. It can only be effective and successful if it communicates with and recruits to its cause all other relevant organizations which have influence with the South African people and which are in constant communication with them. Sixthly the hon. the Minister must heed the advice of Prof. Ranchod of the Durban-Westville University who has said, among other things, free contraception, regardless of age or marital status, must be available to South Africans who require contraception. At the Orange Free State National Party Congress about a year or two ago, the hon. the Minister said that contraceptives were available to all people free of charge. However, I think the words of Prof. Ranchod that must be emphasized is that free contraception should be available to all, regardless of age or marital status. This is something which the hon. the Minister can fruitfully give his attention to.

In regard to my seventh point, I differ completely from the hon. member for Pinetown and also the hon. member for Hercules. The liberalization of South African abortion laws is absolutely essential, not a means to reduce population growth, but as an integral part of family planning, as family planning should be an integral part of the education and the guidance of the people of our country.

Let us be honest about it. The present Abortion Act has failed dismally in meeting the objectives, some of which possibly the drafters of the Act did not have in mind, but which the people who hoped for an effective Abortion Act set out for it. Last year only 476 people availed themselves of that Act. Because of the strict application of the Act, a large number of medical practitioners who were performing abortions under clinically correct conditions which did not endanger the lives of the people concerned, have now stopped doing so. The people who went to those practitioners are today going to back-street abortionists. Prof. S. A. Strauss said last year that approximately 100 000 people per annum went to the back-street abortionists and received abortions, with the dangers which applied to them, i.e. infections, maiming of the people, sterilization and even death of the people concerned. What this Act has achieved is not a liberalization of the situation. It has enhanced the back-street abortionist and increased the number of people who are availing themselves of back-street abortions.

Another interesting fact is that a far larger percentage of White people are availing themselves of the Abortion Act, and very few Black people. The reason is very simple. Only the most sophisticated persons could possibly cope with all the requirements—all the visits to different doctors which are needed—in order to obtain an abortion. The unsophisticated people are not in a position to avail themselves of the provisions of the Abortion Act. I believe that the hon. the Minister must continuously review this Act, and if it is proved that it does not meet the requirements of the situation, I hope that the hon. the Minister will have the enlightenment and the courage to come to this House and say: “We were wrong, and I am now going to amend the Act to make provision for the real requirements for abortion in South Africa.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will understand if I do not follow him in his arguments, except to say that the picture is not as black as he sees it. Of course, he has a particular tendency to see black and to talk black. I just want to tell the hon. member that the answer does not lie in abortion, but in the prevention of pregnancies. I do not think the medical profession is prepared to play the executioner for something for which it was not responsible.

In the time at my disposal I would like to say just four things. I want to say “thank you” to doctors of South Africa, I want to say “yes” when it comes to allowing people under certain circumstances to die, I want to say “no” to mercy killing, or rather mercy murder, and I want to say “please” to hon. members and to the department as far as certain aspects of cancer are concerned.

As far as my “thank you” is concerned, I have here a copy of a circular letter from the Medical Association of South Africa to all medical practitioners. This letter was also published in the South African Medical Journal earlier this year. In this circular letter the Medical Association says amongst other things—

My information is that the response to this particular request has been magnificent. As a matter of fact, many doctors, before this request was made to them from the Medical Association, did not charge those people fees. Therefore I say “thank you” to the medical practitioners of South Africa for their attitude towards the granting of this facility to dependants of members of the Citizen Force and National Servicemen.

I also say “thank you” to the medical practitioners of South Africa for thousands of other instances where they have during the past years not only done their duty, but have done their duty patriotically, unselfishly and philanthropically. It was with real concern, to put it mildly, that I read in the Press that in the Provincial Council of Natal a measure was passed whereby private practitioners can be forced to work in provincial hospitals if they want to treat their private patients there. I think it is a short-sighted, socialistic and rather bureaucratic measure.

We talk a lot about dialogue. We also talk a lot about consultation. I would like to know: Has the Medical Association been consulted in this regard? I hope that the Department of Health and the other provinces will never resort to such one-sided measures, because that will be a bad day for the health system of South Africa. It will be a bad day for the relationship between private practitioners and the Government. It will also be a bad day for private enterprise in South Africa. I am rather surprised at people from Natal, who talk about private enterprise every day, supporting such a measure.

I repeat that I would like to thank the medical practitioners of South Africa, both in private practice and in public service, for the patriotic, unselfish and philanthropic way in which they treat their patients and execute their duty. This is the third session that I have been in this House and I have heard a lot of criticism of doctors, but I have not heard a lot—except my own voice—of appreciation for the doctors. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rosettenville is perhaps the other member who voices some appreciation for the doctors.

Secondly, I said that I wanted to say “yes” and “no”. A lot has been written lately about euthanasia.

*Euthanasia is on everyone’s lips, and everyone is talking about it. The time at my disposal will not allow me to argue this matter in detail. Nevertheless I should like to make two statements in regard to euthanasia.

Sometimes a patient finds himself in a critical terminal state of an incurable disease—whether it is congenital or acquired—and there is no longer any hope of recovery; it is merely a question of time. If, with euthanasia, is meant that a doctor should not extend such a patient’s life unnecessarily, but should ease his pain and make him comfortable, then the vast majority of doctors in South Africa say “yes”. I myself have allowed such patients—in so far as God gives it into one’s power—to die. In other words, I switched off the machine myself. I can call this “mercifully allowing people to die”, and to that we say “yes”. However, if what is meant by mercy killing is that doctors should actively and positively and knowingly administer substances to cause such patients to die, that is not mercy killing. It is mercy murder, and to that our doctors in South Africa will never say “yes”. The same argument applies to what the hon. member has just had to say about abortion.

Hear, hear!

We thank our doctors; we say “yes” to mercifully allowing a person to die, and we say “no” to mercy murder. I want to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Berea, and when I do so I am not referring to private hospitals. We already have legislation for that.

†The Government is wide awake. We know about the problems of private hospitals. That is why we passed a measure in this House earlier this year for the proper control of private hospitals.

*Perhaps the easiest way of explaining the cancer situation is as follows. Approximately 90% of those of us sitting in this House and our wives will die of three diseases, only three diseases! More than 50% of us will die as a result of cardiovascular condition.

That is really being morbid, man!

I am mentioning this because I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to do something about it. In my maiden speech in this House my theme was cardiovascular diseases, and I hope it helped. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister took it to heart, and to his bloodvessels. I am not going to repeat that speech now, but more than 20% of us will die from cancer, and I am going to make this my theme this evening. More than 10% will die of a trauma. Traumas are injuries, injuries are for the most part a result of violence, and that violence is for the most part a result of motor accidents. All other conditions together will cause the death of only 10% of us.

Let us consider this cancer situation for a while. I concede that this might perhaps sound a little morbid. However, one should face up to reality. It is in fact one of my main appeals tonight that we should get away from this fear of cancer. When I was a child cancer was a person’s death warrant.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for giving me more time. As the Hippocratic oath stipulates, and as a person should, I have great respect for my senior colleagues.

As I was saying, we must get away from this fear of cancer. The essence of what I want to say tonight is that we do not know precisely what causes cancer. We know of many contributory causes. We know that smoking is a very important contributory cause of lung cancer, as the hon. member for Berea said. We know that sunburn is a very important contributory cause of skin cancer. We also know that bilharzia in an advanced stage is a very important contributory cause of cancer of the bladder. In this way there are other contributory causes of which we are aware. Because we are aware of the contributory causes, we can avoid them. However, we do not know precisely what causes cancer, and consequently we cannot say that prevention is better than cure, and prevent cancer. The point I want to make is that a very large percentage of cancer cases are cured completely as a result of early diagnosis. The prognosis is very good, but what I want to emphasize tonight is that the specific condition is an early diagnosis.

The hon. members had a great deal to say about the population explosion. However, I do not believe that we can afford the decimation of people who are highly qualified and who occupy eminent positions in society as a means of counteracting the population explosion. I believe that this is really too expensive a method. We can counteract the population explosion by preventing pregnancy; not by allowing our people to be decimated. I repeat that all we have to do is ensure that our people see a doctor in time.

And smoke less.

Yes, and smoke less. I agree with that. What picture does the cancer situation present? Perhaps I should put it in this way: What is cancer? We have a terrible fear of cancer, but we must get away from that fear. If I have injured my hand and there is a cut, the cut heals rapidly. First the flesh heals, then the subcutaneous tissue and fat—in my case this is rather a thick layer—and afterwards the skin. That rapid growth then ceases. Cancer is precisely the same thing except that—to express it in layman’s terms—in cancer one has uncontrolled growth. The growth is rapid, but it is uncontrolled and does not stop. In liver cancer, therefore, we have a liver cell which starts growing, as it would have done if the liver had been injured, but that cell does not stop growing—it keeps on growing and then we have liver cancer. The same applies to blood and bone cancer. It arises simply as a result of uncontrolled growth which in due course destroys the other tissues by stifling them.

We know that if we do not make an appointment with our doctor in time, approximately 20% of us will die of cancer. I wonder whether I may ask hon. members how many of them have been to see a doctor this year for a proper examination. How many hon. members have seen to it that their wives went to a doctor for a proper examination and a pap smear. If a woman has had a pap smear it can be determined whether she is likely to have cancer within the next 10 years. If there are signs of cells which will cause anything of this nature in future, steps can be taken in time. I want to repeat that 20% of us will have to be careful if we do not get to the doctor on time.

When a soldier dies on our borders, a great deal of publicity is given to such an incident. Sympathy is expressed from all quarters. It is fit and proper that this should be the case. However, we should not forget that every 40 minutes someone dies of cancer in South Africa. It is not fit and proper that we do not do enough about that. A moment ago reference was made to the slaughter on our roads. A great deal of publicity is being given to road safety, and many measures are being adopted in an attempt to keep death off the roads. This is also fit and proper. However, we must remember that precisely twice as many people die of cancer than die on our roads. Are we doing enough to trace cancer cases in time with a view to effecting a cure? One out of every four people will become cancer sufferers, and one out of every five or six people in a certain age group will die of this disease. I do not want to bore the hon. members with statistics, but I nevertheless think that these few facts may make them realize how serious this matter really is. At one of the hospitals here in the Cape more than 3 000 new cancer cases are treated every year. Not all those cases are immediately fatal, and we can therefore say that approximately 4 500 or even 5 000 cancer cases per annum are being treated in one hospital.

Our task—and it is also the task of hon. members—is to inform our people. The public must know what the signs are which they should look out for. Women should know how to perform a self-examination of their breasts. The husbands may help them, but only in the case of their own wives. [Interjections.] The Cancer Association of South Africa has wonderful literature for the layman, which is also available to members. Hon. members would do well to study it. As far as society is concerned the hon. members of this House are opinion-shapers. We are opinion-shapers, and we must bear this message to our people. I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not present here. Has she ever considered, when addressing a political meeting and before telling her political stories, asking the women whether they have seen their doctors this year and whether they have had a pap smear? If she did that, she would be saving many more lives. However, I do not want to take this matter any further, for then I would be talking politics.

I want to mention a wonderful example. The Americans are not as verkramp as we are. They are far more frank. In August 1974 Betty Ford underwent an operation, and in October 1974 Happy Rockefeller underwent the same operation. Wide publicity was given to these operations throughout the world. Even we knew about it. Research was subsequently carried out, and in a specific area in America, I think it was Washington, they studied the figures to establish how many women in that area consulted a doctor in August and September of 1974 and 1975, how many of them were suffering from cancer, how many biopsies were made, etc. It was then found that in August and September 1975 there had been a tremendous increase in the number of patients who had consulted a doctor, for they had begun to get away from the fear of cancer. In that specific area, in the period August to September 1974, 42 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed, and in the period August to September 1975 twice as many, i.e. 84 cases. The important point, however, is that these 84 cases were diagnosed far sooner than there would normally have been the case, for those patients would not have gone to their doctor if Betty Ford had not undergone an operation. In other words, many of the cases were diagnosed early in 1975 and their prognosis, the 100% survival rate, was not twice as much as in 1974, but in fact approximately four times as much. That is the point I want to make. I want to request that we should be of assistance. For example, we should, as has been said, inform our teachers. But the important point, and in this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Berea, is the question of money. The Cancer Association of South Africa is doing magnificent work, but I nevertheless think that we, who are the opinion-shapers, and our Government should really make a greater contribution than that R200. I think the hon. member for Berea had a very good case. Then there is the question of the R210 million earned in the form of excise duty on cigarettes. Cigarettes are a contributory cause of cancer, and I think it is no less than right that a portion of that money should be employed to combat the evil which results from smoking. I am therefore making an appeal to the department to see whether we cannot make a greater contribution, apart from our individual contributions.

In the remaining time at my disposal, there is one other matter I should like to raise. This is the question of homeopaths, osteopaths and herbalists. This Parliament passed an Act which made proper control over these persons possible. I do not now wish to argue the question of whether or not their existence can be justified. I think that a decision has already been reached in this regard. Personally I think that, from a scientific point of view, it cannot. However, this is not the matter under discussion. The point is that this Parliament approved of the matter and that we decided that their existence was in fact justified. These people had many internecine quarrels. In fact, they are still having them. Quite a number of problems arose, which I cannot go into at the moment. I have been to the department. The hon. the Minister and the Secretary know what my standpoint in this regard is, and I think these people also know. I do not think they have had sufficient experience of a control board. I think that there is too much contrariness. It depends on who the chairman is and what group is in power. This kind of thing applies. Just as we have the Medical Council, they also have their own Association. I wondered whether one could not amend the Act so that a lawyer would be chairman. This could simply be a temporary measure. After a few years one could perhaps change it again. Such a lawyer would then ensure that matters, which sometimes go wrong will be dealt with properly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Krugersdorp has made a positive contribution to the debate of the Health Vote here this evening. We on this side of the House anticipated that he would do so, being a medical man, and being a man who does show some clear thinking on a number of matters, particularly on health matters. We would like to associate ourselves with the remarks he has made. In his support to the plea by the hon. member for Berea for a greater contribution to the National Cancer Association, we also agree with him. We also associate ourselves with his rebuke of the hon. member for Bryanston, who cast a reflection on the medical profession indicating that he was virtually in favour of a continuation of illegal abortions being carried out by certain medical practitioners. This, we believe to be a completely irresponsible attitude, and an irresponsible statement to make.

Hear, hear!

The PRP had a previous speaker as well, in the hon. member for Pinelands. He indicated, in a rather evasive manner, what the attitude of his party was in connection with organizations which are presently—as the hon. member for Rosettenville said—carrying on a vendetta against the Department of Health, particularly with regard to mental healing and psychiatric treatment of patients. It is interesting to note that the Society for Safety in Mental Healing, which is really a front of the Church of Scientology—and of which the Church of Scientology is really the patron—has also other patrons, among whom we find Senator Winchester of the PRP. If we look at the documents which they have submitted since the Society was formed last year, we also see that Senator Brian Bamford of the PRP is also playing a leading role in advising those people on various matters. That is being of some assistance to other sponsors, such as Mr. Spike Milligan.

However, we believe it is necessary from time to time, of course, to ask the hon. the Minister, as a responsible Minister of Health, about various matters concerning the treatment of patients in psychiatric hospitals. I also believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should—when he replies to this debate—give some indication as to the Government’s attitude with regard to a case which, particularly this Society, has deemed appropriate to gain for them a great deal of publicity. That is known as the Graham Johnson case; a case in which a man who was a patient of the Komani Mental Hospital for a considerable period of time—was involved. According to the Society various malpractices occurred at the particular mental hospital. They consequently made a case, claiming that they were trying to expose the maltreatment of psychiatric patients. I am particularly interested in this case, because I received representations from the person concerned. I was subsequently informed that, as a result of the representations I had made, this particular patient was subject to punishment. However, I have not been able to ascertain whether that was correct or not. I therefore believe that it is important that the hon. the Minister of Health should take an opportunity of stating the case of his department and of his own position concerning this particular case, as it is being presented as being indicative of an undesirable situation in the psychiatric hospitals.

The matter which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of the health services which are undertaken by his department in the Bantu homelands, and on behalf of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. member for Brentwood referred to the various hospitals and clinics, and this is of particular importance in the Durban area. We have in Durban the King Edward VIII hospital, which is the training hospital of the medical school, and which is situated in the constituency which I represent. This hospital has been there for many years, and indeed the medical school has a history of some 25 years of service. I remember, many years ago, when I was first appointed to the King Edward VIII hospital advisory board—22 years ago—that the position as far as the training hospital was concerned, was a cause of great concern because of the requirements of the hospital, stemming from the fact that it was used as a training hospital and that alterations were necessary and demands were heavy, requiring a great deal of attention.

We have seen over the years how the medical school has developed, and right from the year 1957—when the first 12 graduates graduated from the medical school—we have seen over 608 graduates from the medical school. We believe, as the hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out, that it is important that additional facilities should be made available for the training, particularly of Black doctors. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Health will agree that there is a considerable shortage of Black doctors in this country.

Consequently, every effort must be made to ensure that the medical school continues with the work which it is undertaking, so as to provide more doctors amongst the various race groups. If one looks at the number of doctors that have graduated throughout the history of this medical school, we find the following figure: 216 Blacks, 351 Indians and 46 Coloureds. Therefore it is important that some clarity must be obtained in the situation which is developing in regard to the future of a hospital such as the King Edward VIII Hospital, which caters principally for Blacks. The hon. the Minister’s department has taken responsibility in the adjoining area for the provision of certain health services. There are clinics in the Umlazi and Kwa Mashu areas, but these are hopelessly inadequate to overcome the tremendous overcrowding that takes place at this hospital. The overcrowding is the result not only of the build-up in the pressure of patients, but also as a result of Government policy to restrict any extensions to a hospital of this nature which, according to them, is situated in a White area. Consequently, one has the situation whereby, if there should be an epidemic or any kind of national disaster, a hospital such as the King Edward VIII simply would not be able to cope under any circumstances. Therefore it is important that the hon. the Minister, being responsible for the health of our people and of the large number of Blacks who are working in industry in Durban and who use this hospital to a great extent, should investigate the matter. On most occasions there are something like 2 000 inpatients in the hospital and more than 2 000 out-patients being treated every day in the out-patients department. Therefore one can imagine the tremendous pressure that is built up at this hospital. A large number of these cases are workmen’s compensation cases and cases where they are serving the health needs of the people in that vicinity. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the future is of these hospitals that are providing this essential health service in these areas. Is it the intention that these hospitals should be phased out entirely because a medical school is to be established at the University of Durban-Westville for Indian medical students? If this is done, a tremendous shortage of doctors is going to occur.

The hon. the Minister of Health and his department find themselves faced with the situation that the hospitals situated in the Bantu areas are being administered by him, but there is a need to expedite the establishment of more clinics or, preferably, the establishment of the new proposed hospital at Umlazi. The answers to various questions that I have posed in the House from time to time have indicated that this hospital was due for completion in 1978. However, in the beginning of this year I asked a further question in regard to the progress which was being made with the establishment of this hospital. The reply was that the structure work was 60% complete, but that the anticipated date of completion of the hospital, subject to the availability of funds, was now 1981. Therefore, with the population growth that is taking place, we are going to have almost chaotic conditions in the hospitals for non-White people in the Durban area, and the new hospital will only be completed in 1981. The hospital at Umlazi will have something like 1 400 beds and this will help, to a certain extent, to ease the tremendous congestion of the King Edward VIII Hospital.

The department are taking steps to establish another hospital at Kwa Mashu, and we welcome this. The greatest disadvantage here is the fact that this hospital will not be ready at least until the year 1982. Therefore my plea to the hon. the Minister of Health is that he should try to meet this enormous demand for hospitals where they are completely restricted as to any further extensions at that hospital, for many thousands of people are requiring medical attention and there is a tremendous build-up of pressure at the hospital in the Durban area and patients have even to be accommodated on the floor between beds and in various other places to try to meet the enormous demand. Figures certainly indicate that this hospital, which is a teaching hospital, has, in spite of all its problems and difficulties, been able to build up an enviable international reputation as a hospital where important research has been and is still being undertaken, research that is recognized throughout the world and people come from many parts of the world to study particularly in the obstetrical department where they can gain invaluable experience, and in regard to tropical diseases, as the hon. member for Berea indicated. This hospital makes an enormous contribution to the health of the people of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal explanation I understand that a member on the opposite side of the House made the allegation that I was a patron of the group known as Scientology. I want to assure the House, and whoever made that allegation in my absence, that this is complete nonsense. I categorically deny that this is so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo must pardon me for not following up on his speech. However, I am in complete agreement with him as far as his criticism of the hon. member for Bryanston’s standpoint on abortion in South Africa is concerned. Surely there is still a great task ahead of us in the sphere of health care at the southernmost point of the continent of Africa during the next decade. In this the Department of Health is playing an increasingly important role. Consequently this affects the medical profession very closely, particularly if one looks at the annual report of the Department of Health. This is the case not only on the level of relations, but also on the highest ethical level. Here, too, we have a leadership role and an influencing role to play in South Africa. We are a Christian nation, and precisely for that reason the Christian Calvinistic ideology plays such an important part in the determination of our guiding principles in medical ethics. Therefore the medical and dental council is the jealous protector of the established norms in order to preserve and protect those ethical norms which are so unique to South Africa for the future. If we look at the tremendous increase in the number of malpractices in countries such as America, we may justifiably consider ourselves fortunate that we have the present situation in South Africa. Involuntarily, the following question now arises: What is in fact the present situation? To reply to this question it is necessary to consider the number of disciplinary inquiries dealt with by the council during the past few years. From 1960 to 1975 the number of registered medical practitioners rose from 8 000 to 13 000. Over this period the number of disciplinary inquiries varied from 3 to 21 per year, if we set this figure against the number of medical practitioners, we find a fluctuating pattern. In this way one out of every 850 medical practitioners was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry in 1962. In 1974 the ratio increased to one out of every 603. In 1975 it decreased again to one out of every 925.

The nature and the complaints of the inquiries are not relevant now. However, I do want to lay a finger on one particular aspect which gives rise to great concern on the part of both the medical council as well as the medical association. I am referring to the thorny question of the over-treatment and the over-svisiting of patients by medical practitioners. This is, in my opinion, an unfortunate byproduct of the advent of medical aid schemes. In this regard the medical practitioner as well as the patient may be guilty of a malpractice. It is a situation which is difficult to determine, and it seldom gives rise to an actual complaint. However, we are aware of medical practitioners who unnecessarily have expensive series of tests carried out, and leave nothing to a healthy clinical judgment. Another example is that of an expensive series of injections being administered for self-limiting diseases. After all, medical funds pay for them. We are also aware of patients who visit the consulting rooms of medical practitioners for every minor complaint, and of unnecessary week-end and night visits by a doctor for trivialities. In addition medicines have to be delivered to the patient by the delivery man.

Talking of medicines, if we look at the list of medicines marketed in South Africa the question arises whether it is really necessary to have no less than 60 products on the market, the active ingredient of which contains aspirin, paracetamol or codeine—or a combination of these. Is it really necessary for an active ingredient such as oxytetracycline to occur in not less than 34 different products of different companies? It is time we investigated this matter. Every product requires a marketing campaign to put the products on to the market. We as medical practitioners and as patients, the people of this country, simply cannot afford these luxuries anymore. We shall have to investigate the matter, because we owe it to our country.

In spite of this our standards of practice are still considered to be the highest in the world. Nevertheless I find it a pity that a certain learned gentleman requested at the recent international symposium of the S.A. Forensic Society that legislation be changed in such a way that it would be possible for an increasing number of claims to be instituted and that it should be made easier for people to lodge claims against medical practitioners. In the Rapport of 16 May he is reported to have said—

What is this standpoint going to avail us? Do we want to go the same way as the United States where, during 1965, there were no fewer than 25 000 cases pending, and where, in certain medical disciplines, it costs a medical practitioner more than $20 000 in insurance premiums alone to cover himself against possible claims? The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that medical practitioners refuse to render first aid at accidents because it makes them vulnerable to the human vultures who wait for their prey there. We must avoid such a situation in South Africa at all costs. We simply cannot afford to have our young people deterred in this way from entering this vital profession in this country, in which there is already a shortage of medical practitioners.

I want to refer to another aspect of medical ethics which recently came under the closest scrutiny, viz. the entire question of active euthanasia, which the hon. member for Krugersdorp also raised. To my mind it is in conflict with the esteem and respect we owe to the wonder of life, and I agree that the same applies to abortion on demand, which the hon. member for Bryanston requested. Prof. J. D. J. Hofmeyr recently stated this as follows in an article—

Who and what are we to determine the duration of that wonderful life? Many of my colleagues and I have also experienced the beauty of life, even on the deathbed, even in the midst of terrible, painful suffering. We have also experienced how repentance, acquiescence and divine happiness came upon such a dying person long after we had received requests from the family and even from the patients themselves to apply active euthanasia.

Can we as people allow an individual to be deprived of that supreme happiness and the heritage which is his through the application of active euthanasia? No, the sixth commandment is still: Thou shalt not kill and so it will be for all times: Now, and also in future. We must far rather realize the positive, the instructional part of this commandment, namely to protect, further and preserve what is beautiful, what is wonderful in this life, unceasingly. This is the bounden duty of every medical practitioner in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Pietersburg, but I am not going to follow up on his thoughts, because I want to talk about something else. Tonight I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about diabetes.

†I wish to read something which appeared in To the Point a week ago. The article is entitled “Diabetes scare” and I quote—

Mr. Chairman, I know this is telling the hon. the Minister something that he knows everything about, but I do not know whether it is familiar to everybody else. Many of us stand a chance of inheriting this insidious metabolic disorder or disease which is caused by a malfunction of the pancreas, a small gland in the body which manufactures insulin. I call diabetes “insidious” because it creeps on as a thief in the night. This is perhaps its greatest danger because together with the Germans and Americans, the South Africans are more susceptible to diabetes than any other nation. There is a commonly held belief that diabetes is caused by overeating and overdrinking, but this is not so because it is largely hereditary.

It has been proved that it is found in young children, even in babies. Although incorrect diet does contribute to diabetes its greatest danger is that it goes undetected and therefore untreated. We know that before the discovery of insulin only 55 years ago thousands of people suffered and died as a result of diabetes and disorders resulting from an excess of blood sugar. Even today, with all the wonders of medical science, there are thousands of people in South Africa who are prematurely invalided from their occupations as a result of untreated diabetes. Some are physically incapacitated and others are mentally affected. Unfortunately many of these people fall into the more skilled occupations and not only represent an incalculable loss of manpower in the professions and in the occupations, but also become a heavy financial drain on their families and the State. Practically all of this could be avoided by the use of early detection methods. After all, it is the simplest of laboratory techniques to discover. I know that the hon. the Minister, who is the patron of the Diabetic Association of South Africa, should do something, and we would plead with him to initiate and support a campaign, on the lines of that of the anti-tuberculosis campaign, to detect and treat diabetes so that we can cope with the problem which, although it may not be as contagious as tuberculosis, can be just as crippling and devastating in its results. I may add that in the United States at least 5 million people are sufferers and Congress has just voted $60 million for research alone into diabetes. No one knows how many South Africans are subject to or affected by diabetes, but some put the figure as high as 15%, or one in every six persons.

I have looked through the estimate to see how much is really being spent on the detection of diabetes and its treatment, and I am unable to find any reference to it, except perhaps under genetic services. The hon. the Minister must correct me if I am wrong, but under the heading genetic services it states “the monitoring of the occurrence, extent and trends of congenital and hereditary diseases and anomalies in order that the hereditary factors may be detected early, and the provision of genetic advisory services regarding preventative measures to individuals and families”. The money allocated to these genetic services is only R55 000, as compared with the R7,7 million allocated to the early detection and treatment of tuberculosis. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether sufficient is being done. Is sufficient money being allocated, to try to halt this disease or to try to detect it early and therefore treat the people in time? I know that cases of light diabetics, people who are not severely affected, and those who are caught early, can be treated by dietary methods, and others who are a little worse, can perhaps be treated by drugs and diet. But I will say that the large majority of diabetics have to be treated with insulin and receive one or two injections per day. Along with diet, insulin is the most important treatment for diabetes. It is not a cure, but at least it does regulate diabetes and makes it possible for people to carry on a normal life provided they follow this regimen and inject regularly. If they do not inject regularly, the condition of the patient can only deteriorate and become sluggish. He is always tired, his eyesight is affected, sores take much longer to heal or do not heal at all, the smallest illness can become fatal, the brain is dulled and the kidneys collapse, and if the insulin is cut off completely, of course the end comes quicker, but it is no less distressing to the patient or his family. The price of insulin has gone up by leaps and bounds in the last few years. With the last increase, the price of insulin went up by 37½%. For some of these hormones, which cost R1,60 before for a 10-mm phial, the price has now gone up to R2,20, an increase of 37%. People who cannot afford this insulin treatment are cutting down on the injections and thus neglecting themselves and killing themselves off slowly. One lady has written to tell me that because of the medicines and medical accounts of her husband who has to keep working, she herself cannot afford to buy insulin at the present price and has decided to cut back on her injections. This is tragic, because I wonder who is going to nurse or look after her husband once she can no longer drag herself around. An average insulin-using diabetic must be spending R9 to R10 per week on insulin alone. There are the other costs, too, such as syringes and needles. One wonders why the price of insulin has been allowed to go up so high. After all, it is life-giving to people and should therefore not be priced beyond their means. I have tried to find the answer to this and I have been told that the local production of insulin has not been able to keep up with the increased need for insulin. This goes to prove that many more South Africans are apparently needing insulin.

If one goes by the figure which the hon. the Minister gave when he was asked how much insulin was being imported into South Africa, he said that in 1973 the figure was R21 000 and in 1975, R168 000, which represents an 800% increase in the amount of insulin imported into South Africa. I am told that this is because there has been a drastic drop-off in the number of animals that are slaughtered in South Africa. Insulin is made from the animals which are slaughtered at the abattoirs. The result is that more and more insulin has to be imported. If the cost of the imported insulin is high because of an excise duty, I would ask the hon. the Minister if he could not plead with his fellow Minister, the Minister of Finance, to reduce that duty on insulin. It would appear to me, however, that this has been done, but I am open to correction. I see that in 1973 the duty on insulin that was imported was R12 000 and in 1975, only R880, so this would suggest that the excise duty on insulin has been drastically cut. If this is so, I would plead with the hon. the Minister that a subsidy be paid on insulin, particularly to those people who through a means test would be eligible, for example pensioners and retired people, so that they could get subsidized insulin more cheaply than others. After all, we do not all belong to medical aid schemes. Those of us who do belong to medical aid schemes are not particularly worried about the increases in the cost of medicines, but there are thousands of people, particularly elderly people, who cannot join the medical aid societies to help them with their insulin costs.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for South Coast and his family need be in any way concerned about this disease, for we have recently had conclusive proof that the Van Collers are really tough people. At the end of the debate we also see that the discussion which has been conducted here highlighted the nursing profession, the service and activities of those whose task it is to nurse and to care for people. We must seek the origins of nursing in the task of the wife, the task of the mother, for it is part of her nature to care for and to nurse her child, her husband, her family and her people. It is part of her nature; it is a natural quality as intimately interwoven into her existence as the red tint of the blood in her veins.

In modern times the nursing service is once again a front-line service, as is our defence force service, our police service and the service of our medical practitioners, for we find nursing being practised wherever our defence force operates. In the operational area where people get hurt and are wounded, nursing is one of the auxiliary services. Where the tragic events of yesterday and today occur, nursing services are essential and indispensable. In our cities and in the country areas, at the birth of a baby and the death of an old man, the hands and the smile of a nurse are necessary. In this Western world of ours, since the days of Florence Nightingale—and since the days of Emily Hobhouse in our own country—the patient with his heartaches and his problems has never, for the nurse, been an object of exchange for money. She has always seen her service as fundamentally being a charitable service, a service of care and love. Interwoven into this is the subtle discipline of a person towards a patient, a loyalty which one cannot really measure. When the patient leaves, she tears herself away from the nurse.

The nurse in modern times has to keep up with her studies and research to be able to be conversant with the knowledge explosion and the technological progress which is also taking place in the sphere of medicine. She must also keep abreast with the knowledge and techniques which she has to apply in practice from day to day.

Unfortunately I am only able to touch on a few aspects here. A nurse is a person who is herself responsible for her own decisions. In her daily task she must consequently rely on her own decisions and she must be able to take the responsibility for those decisions; sometimes she has to make a diagnosis herself, give a decision and prescribe certain courses of action when a doctor is not immediately available. Over and above that, the nurse is also a woman who has to be well-grounded in administrative work in order to be able to manage her ward, her patients and her subordinate nurses and to guide them to disciplined orderliness. She is responsible for the ward with all the people in it. Apart from that she is also an educator. Many of us sitting here tonight have possibly been patients in the care of nurses. The patient, in his psychosis of weakness, searches for an anchor to which he can cling. It happens so frequently then that the nurse subsequently has to wean this patient from her presence, so that he can grow and once again become an independent person.

I just want to give an example of a young boy who lost both legs in an accident. When he recovered consciousness it was only to discover that he would be half a person for the rest of his life. The nurse then had to guide the spirit of that child towards acceptance of what he would be and towards acceptance of the challenges which life would present him with in future. She therefore has to support her patient in his quest for independence until such a patient once again has the confidence which can help him regain his health.

We do not appreciate the task of the nurse adequately by merely proffering bouquets and boxes of chocolates, because there is another aspect as well, the aspect of remuneration. The hon. member for Springs furnished an interesting and comprehensive survey of the training of a nurse, but when we consider the salary we pay nurses, we are once again dealing with an interesting aspect. Last year Hoofstad did some research into the matter and came up with interesting facts. For example, a post for a senior typist was advertised, and the salary attached to the post amounted to R615 per month. I can state without fear of contradiction that a nurse who has completed a graduate course in nursing definitely does not receive such a salary after completing her studies. I want to draw only one comparison. What is the responsibility of a senior typist? What responsible decisions does she have to take in the office in which she is working? At most she has to decide whether a letter is correct or not. However, the nurse has to take a decision which affects the life of a human being. I do not want to take the comparison any further.

Are the nurses playing their part in the national economy and the national task? In this regard I am quoting a single statistic from a document received from the directress of the S.A. Nursing Association—

The nurses are definitely contributing their share to our national task.

There are three aspects: The first is our appreciation for our nurses and we want to express our appreciation for the task they are doing. Their task is indispensable. The second aspect is that we want to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister to take stock of the task of these people when the economic climate has recovered. We must also apply means to make provision for these people. I conclude by quoting in regard to the third aspect, a short passage from a statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs—

These people are truly indispensable to us.

Mr. Chairman, I usually find, when I take part in a debate after an hon. member of the NP, that there is something in the hon. member’s speech with which I do not agree. I like it when this is so, because it makes the debate so much livelier. Unfortunately I find that there is nothing in the speech of the hon. member for Standerton with which I do not agree. Unfortunately I have to agree wholeheartedly with everything he said this evening. I want to congratulate him on an excellent speech. I agree wholeheartedly that something should be done for our nurses. I also say that we should see to it that the remuneration of our nurses should be improved.

†I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister on the question of that awful disease known as arthritis. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister something which he probably knows, but of which I would like to remind him again, namely that there is in Cape Town a foundation known as the Arthritis Foundation. It came into being in 1969. This society is currently the only society of its kind in the Republic and has as its main object the establishment and maintenance of an organization to improve and increase the resources available for scientific investigation and the treatment of the causes of arthritis and its effects. The Foundation started in 1969 as a welfare service to patients. It gradually developed into a work unit for patients and in addition to these two services which it renders to arthritis patients, it has now also launched a major research programme which it wishes to effect through at least three university centres. The aim of the Foundation is to collect a fund of R150 000 in order to do so. A small start has already been made with a single research fellowship for the year 1977, at a cost of R12 000. This is, however, certainly not going to be sufficient and it is going to take a very long time at this rate before the research in respect of the causes and effects of arthritis is completed. The money that at present is available to the Foundation has been collected by the members from public subscriptions and by various fund-raising means.

You see, Mr. Chairman, the trouble is that the S.A. Institute for Medical Research has limited funds and also has to maintain priorities. Because of its limited funds and the question of priorities it is very difficult for the Arthritis Foundation to get any money from it, if it were possible for this institute to make money available. It is also very difficult for the institute itself to institute research while it has so many other calls on the limited amount of money available. We believe that the Arthritis Foundation has a very good purpose in mind because in developing research in this country it has such a vast field of clinical material upon which it can work. We believe that in South Africa one could eventually arrive at the possible causes and effects and the way in which to deal with arthritis.

I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I do not know what he can do in this regard. I do not know whether he should channel more funds through the S.A. Institute for Medical Research, whether he believes that arthritis is a problem that should be researched or what his policy in that regard should be. I do, however, say to the hon. the Minister that here is an opportunity where a project has been started by a private foundation. It is a private scheme, but I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able at least to bless this scheme and help it on its way. I feel that with some encouragement from the Minister this Foundation may yet arrive at its target of R150 000 and establish not only this one fellowship which I have already referred to, but also the two others which it has in mind. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his earnest consideration and at the same time to see whether there are any other ways in which he could deal with this very terrible problem of arthritis. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members of this House and the wider South African public are filled with a deep sense of shock at the events which started yesterday. They are filled with shock, although perhaps not with surprise, except for those who deluded themselves into believing that race relations in South Africa have never been better. When one looks at the events, it appears that a disturbance of a major magnitude has taken place, a disturbance which commenced as a scholars’ demonstration, and developed from there into a riot against authority by people blind with hatred and resentment against the symbols, against the institutions and against the persons associated with that authority. Last night it degenerated into looting, thuggery, violence and murder.

We in these benches express our sympathy with those innocent people who have suffered at the hands of others and to those who today mourn and are bereaved. Yesterday’s events proved one thing: That rioting mobs driven by hatred and resentment have no respect for persons or for individuals. We express our sympathy. We deplore violence of all kinds, because we believe that it is only in peace, and only within an orderly society, that we shall be able to solve the problems of our country. We believe it is the duty of the authorities to act against those who commit acts of violence, of thuggery and of murder.

Right at this present time, we believe it is the priority of the Government to restore law and order, to deal with violence and to contain the threats that there are to the peace in South Africa. However, if that is the responsibility of the executive, I believe it is our responsibility as legislators, in this sovereign Parliament, to give serious consideration to the root causes of the potential violence and conflict in our country. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Justice, who made a statement on the events of this morning, will be able to elaborate and give us more information. In addition, I hope he will be able to outline the steps that are being taken to ensure the safety of the people in a situation which is very tense.

We trust that there is going to be a critical inquiry into the events of yesterday and today, an inquiry on the handling of the situation, an inquiry to sift out the conflicting eye-witness accounts of which we have already read, an inquiry to review the decisions taken, the methods used and the procedures adopted in order to ensure that, where it is necessary to act to maintain order, that is done with a maximum of efficiency and with a minimum use of force. I hope that in the inquiries which will take place, we shall not merely look for scapegoats and that the Government will not indulge in the superficial exercise of blaming everything on so-called activists. We believe that the implications of what took place in Soweto yesterday are far too serious for all of us for either a one-sided or a superficial analysis.

I hope that, arising out of those events, there will be two things that should be common cause amongst us as serious South Africans. That is, firstly, that a city like Soweto could not, within the space of a few hours, be turned into a cauldron of violence and hatred unless there was something fundamentally wrong with the society and unless there was something wrong in the relationships between the Black society and the authorities. I hope there is common cause that there was a chain of events, related to the enforced medium of instruction in the schools of Soweto, which led up to a situation of the open conflict which erupted in Soweto yesterday. The hon. the Minister of Justice referred to the fact that it all started with a protest movement by pupils of certain schools. There is undoubted evidence of arrogance, of indifference, of rank incompetence in the field of Bantu Administration and Development and in the field of education, for which, we believe, the Minister of Bantu Education, and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education in particular, must accept responsibility. We believe that it was a chain of these factors, a combination of these factors, which led to the chain of events culminating in yesterday’s bloody chaos in Soweto.

Ever since early 1975 there have been reasons why, in its opinion, the department has been enforcing the system of English and Afrikaans on a 50:50 basis and extending it with the introduction of the 12-year structure. What is important, is that in enforcing this, the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister have decided to do it in defiance of the wishes of the homeland leaders themselves. They have decided to do it in defiance of the wishes of the teachers, school committees, parents and scholars. They have done it deliberately, despite the warnings which were repeatedly given, warnings that the enforcement had created a deep resentment and that it could result in an explosive situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister may have his reasons, but these are the facts.

Ever since the early stages of 1975, the African Teachers’ Association said that “it was cruel and shortsighted”. In January 1975 the Joint School Board and committees of the Southern and Northern Transvaal regions met the officials of the department in order to protest against it. Early last year, when the hon. the Prime Minister met with the homeland leaders, they requested that instruction in the urban areas should conform with the language medium of instruction in the homeland areas. In May last year the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and Development said “we cannot accede to this request. We cannot approve of this, if this should be the wish of some of the homelands”. Then, to our great dismay, the hon. former Deputy Minister of Bantu Education was asked by the hon. member for Bryanston whether he had consulted with the people and he replied ‘ I have not consulted them and I am not going to consult them.” That situation remained until the shock at the beginning of this year which went right through the African teaching profession. Whether we like it or not, there were signs and warnings as to what would happen. One only has to read Die Burger of today to realize that there were early warnings and signs of trouble as the result of the decision which was taken by the department.

Questions were asked in this House, and since the hon. the Deputy Minister came into this portfolio, he adopted an almost cavalier attitude towards this matter, as did the hon. member himself. The questions put were in regard to the number of schools that were required, which had been refused and which not. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied that these statistics were not kept and added “I do not deem the requested information of such importance to instruct my department to undertake this time-consuming task to obtain the required information.” We had the Tswana Meadowlands School Board resigning on this issue, with Chief Mangope intervening help. The hon. member for Pinelands pleaded in this House for a change in the procedure. The scholars went on strike in the schools. The hon. member for Parktown went to the hon. the Deputy Minister from time to time—between 27 May and 10 June—on behalf of people who were concerned about the situation, and every time the hon. the Deputy Minister told him that there was nothing to worry about. After making inquiries, he indicated that he did not think that there would be an escalation in the dispute. He said the following in a note to the hon. member for Parktown—

The whole tenor up to 10 June was that there was nothing to worry about because the situation was still being handled.

However, there was a riot. The Police went there on the night of 9 June and Station Commander Major Viljoen said that a police car was burnt there, but that there was a misunderstanding as to why it was set alight. Two days later the hon. member for Rosettenville put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in order to obtain information about this incident at a school where scholars had burnt a police car. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the incident. Two days after striking scholars had burnt a police car, the hon. the Deputy Minister told this House that he had no knowledge of this incident at all. Throughout the situation, we have had, I would say, a dereliction of duty in the sense that he did not at any time sense the urgency of the situation. There was an insensitivity towards the feeling of the people and no appreciation of the very stern warning which was coming out of Soweto. Mr. Alpheus Kumalo of the Zulu School Board warned on 28 May that the strike could spread like wildfire, with a possibility of violent confrontation between boycotting pupils and the authorities. Three days ago Mr. Leonard Mosala of the Soweto Urban Bantu Council warned that unless the matter was dealt with immediately, it would precipitate another Sharpeville shooting incident. These were the warnings directed to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister and yet, time and time again, they shrugged them off.

Then there is every indication of rank incompetence and inefficiency within the department itself. The Bantu Administration Department, and even the West Rand Bantu Board, seem to be completely out of touch with the realities of the situation in Soweto. There was no proper liaison between BAD, the Bantu Administration Department, and the Bantu Education Department. The Bantu Administration Department was not informed of the situation or issues by the Department of Bantu Education. There was a totally inadequate upward transmission of information within the Bantu Education Department itself. There is every indication that the Regional Director of Bantu Education, Mr. Ackermann, was completely insensitive and completely inflexible. There was a lack of effective communication between the White officials and the Blacks who are affected by the education. The Urban Bantu Council itself seemed to be no instrument for reflecting the mood of the people, and there was no liaison between the Urban Bantu Council, the BAD and the BED. It is only now that the hon. the Deputy Minister says he is going to consult with the Soweto urban council on this matter. It is too late. That council and the hon. the Minister should have been dealing with the issue a long time ago.

Added to all this, added to the inefficiency, added to the misjudgement of the situation, it appears that we have a Minister and Deputy Minister of Bantu Education who are so enthralled with their own ideology, so insensitive to the feelings of the Blacks, so hopelessly out of touch with the mood of the people in a place like Soweto, that they have simply allowed the matter to slide. They have simply allowed a situation to develop before their very eyes. Added to this, I read in Die Burger this morning a statement which for its insensitivity and arrogance would do credit to Lord Milner of 70 years ago—

And then, with unbelievable cynicism—

There are no other schools. By law there cannot be any other schools. And yet this new Lord Milner says that unless the Blacks accept the language we want them to because we are paying for it, why do they send their children to these schools? [Interjections.]

The events of the last 36 hours in Soweto and elsewhere were, I believe, a tragedy, whether they are measured in human, economic or political terms. The question is: Where do we go from here? It affects all of us. I do not believe that we can afford to sit back and wait for another explosion, I believe that an especially heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister. After all, it was the hon. the Prime Minister who raised the level of Black expectations when he authorized ambassador Pik Botha to commit the South African Government to do all in its power to move away from discrimination. He raised the level of Black expectations. Whatever else he does and wherever else he goes in the world, I believe his first responsibility, for the sake of all of us, is to see that we South Africans fulfil that commitment to get rid of race discrimination. I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that in this highly emotional, politically explosive area, symbolism is also important. And for this reason I believe that the appointment of the present Deputy Minister of Bantu Education was a deep disappointment to millions of Black South Africans who were looking for a change away from discrimination. It was a serious setback for race relations in our country. [Interjections.]

I believe that in all these circumstances the hon. the Prime Minister should do three things. In the first place he should remove the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education from this portfolio. Secondly, he should order an immediate inquiry into the functioning of the Bantu education system and, pending that inquiry, he should suspend the instructions relating to the language medium applicable to the schools. Furthermore, he should suspend Mr. Ackerman, the Regional Director of Bantu Education, until the inquiry has been completed. Finally, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister, in the light of the anguish of Soweto and what has happened, should, as a matter of urgency, appoint at top level a multiracial commission, similar to the Theron Commission appointed for the Coloured people, to consider the social, economic and political reforms that are going to be essential if we are going to avoid conflict, if we are going to live in peace, not in the homelands, not in the rural areas, but in the urban areas of South Africa where Blacks and Whites are living together today. For as long as we can see into the future these people will have to live and work together.

If the hon. the Prime Minister would do these things, if the hon. the Minister of Justice would contain the situation, then I believe that out of the horror, out of the anguish and out of the turmoil of Soweto of the last few days something worthwhile could emerge for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as the rules allow me only five minutes this evening to address the House, I shall necessarily have to be very brief. In times of crisis like we are going through at the present time, I have little doubt that whatever the problem may be, however acute it may be and wherever the fault lies which gave rise to the present situation, the first consideration is the restoration of law and order. Nothing can be satisfactorily settled when the area and the people we are dealing with are in a state of chaos with robbery, arson and murder being the order of the day. The Press and radio reports indicate that hooliganism has taken over in many parts of Soweto with even the Baragwanath Hospital being the subject of attack. This is unforgivable in any situation. Responsible people everywhere should give every support to the Police and others trying to cope with the situation in their difficult task of restoring order. In this regard I should like to pay tribute to the Chief Ministers of Lebowa, Qwaqwa and Gazankulu, who have called upon their people to remain calm and to help restore law and order so that their grievances can be properly settled. I am sorry that we have not had a similar call from the leader of the country, the hon. the Prime Minister, who has the ultimate responsibility of maintaining law and order in any of its parts, a call which I believe should have been coupled with an assurance that Government policy in regard to Black education will immediately be reviewed and grievances redressed.

If Press reports are correct, some White students appear to have staged “protest marches in Johannesburg against the action of the Police”. Hundreds of Black persons have apparently joined in those protest marches. At a time like this, when in parts of the country we have an inflammatory situation, I believe activities of this kind should be condemned and should be resisted.

What appears to be the root cause of the violence and the problems in Soweto? All present indications point to the fault being Government policy in respect of the urban Blacks and the incredibly inept handling of the situation over a period of a month or five weeks by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and the Deputy Minister concerned. The reply to this debate ought not to be given by the hon. the Minister of Police, but by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. I think there is a great deal of sympathy for the hon. the Minister of Police at having to clear up the situation which has been caused by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. For weeks this dispute has been simmering with growing discontent, with strikes and boycotts, with smashing of school windows, with the damaging of vehicles, with Police action having to be taken, all in respect of a policy which the Government itself would disapprove of if it were to be applied to any other population group than the Bantu concerned.

What is worse is that, despite all this, despite a constant escalation in the disaffection, despite warnings by Bantu leaders, urban Bantu leaders, by teachers and by prominent and experienced Whites, despite all these things, nothing appears to have been done to relieve the escalation of tension and violence which has been allowed to continue. I need point to no more authoritative support of what I am saying than an editorial which appeared in the newspaper Beeld this morning. I do not have time to quote it, but it says exactly what I am saying, i.e. that it is inconceivable that this should have been allowed to develop over a period of five weeks and that it should apparently have received little or no attention at the highest levels of the State.

What are we to do in these circumstances? If ministerial incompetence and intransigence leads to public violence of this kind, then it means one thing only, and that is the immediate resignation of the Minister and his Deputy concerned … [Interjections.] … and a full-scale inquiry into the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speeches made by the two hon. members, and I shall not be able to reply to all the statements which the hon. members made. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made an unfair attack on the hon. the Prime Minister … [Interjections.]… when he said that the hon. the Prime Minister should have explained the policy. I think the hon. member is aware that I stated the standpoint of the Government in full this morning in reply to his question, and I also stated it to the Press. Therefore I did not think it was necessary to involve the hon. the Prime Minister in the matter, I think that the hon. member’s statement may be ascribed to politicking on his part.

I want to express my regret at the fact that such an ugly situation has developed and that such an ugly revolt has broken out in Soweto. I am very sorry that so many useful buildings, which were useful to our Black people and were constructed at great expense and with much goodwill, have been burnt down, that so many people have been killed and that so much pain and distress has been caused by events in regard to which it would have been far better if they had not occurred. I think there are many questions which have to be answered, but before I continue with my speech and motivation, in case I do not have time to do this, I should like to say at this early stage that I have decided to appoint a one-man commission of inquiry. I shall formulate the full terms of reference at a later stage. I intend asking the Judge-President of the Transvaal, the hon. Mr. Justice Cillié to form a one-man commission to investigate these matters properly. I want to point out to hon. members that we are going through an emotional period, and that we should not lose our perspective entirely. We must not forget that this is not the first time that student riots take place in the world, we must not forget this and we must not think that this is the end of the world. We could remind ourselves that a few years ago riots flared up from north to south and from east to west on American campuses. Those riots were of such a nature that there was no longer any question of law and order and of policemen on the campuses. Some of them were actuated by the nihilism of Marcuse and two of them were actuated by American Black Power movements. The fact of the matter is, however, that America erupted, and that the country was a blaze as young students turned the campuses into a bloodbath. We also think of the barricades in Paris, when the students kept police away from the university. We also think of the riots in Germany, of Red Dan and all those things which happened. Therefore I say that in comparison we must not forget that even these unsavoury and unfortunate events cannot be compared with what has already happened in the world under the banner of young students. Therefore we must keep our perspective. The riots in Soweto follow the same pattern as, for example, the riots which occurred in East London in 1950. Hon. members will recall the riots which occurred in the residential areas there. That was when they hacked three nuns to death, and there was even talk of some of the people’s flesh disappearing. Therefore things have happened before, and we must not run away now. However, I am afraid that the hon. member for Sea Point is inclined to become emotional and to allow his favourite ideas to run away with him.

The alleged cause of the riots in Soweto was the fact that the students did not want to accept tuition in Afrikaans for certain subjects. The question arises whether they did not merely use the language as a convenient excuse for starting the riots. The principle of secondary education in both Afrikaans and English on a 50-50 basis has existed ever since 1955, and we have never had any difficulty with it. The true position in regard to the tuition in senior secondary education in Soweto is that 95% of the tuition is given through the medium of English, with less than 5% in Afrikaans. It is strange that this should now be a cause of riots of this nature. It is a fact, and I want to state it as a fact, that of the seven schools that participated in the protest march and initiated the arson, six received tuition only in English and Afrikaans is not even used. If one considers those facts, one is entitled to ask: Why did the schools receiving tuition only in English, begin to march.

Colin will know.

Why did they start burning things down? I do not want to say that that was not a reason, but I do want to say that the reason is far more complicated than we think. We in this country are aware that the University Christian Movement initiated a polarization between White and Black and the development of a Black power consciousness. We saw the rise of the Black power idea among the Black people in many of the educational institutions. The question which occurs to one is why the riots occurred at this precise juncture. For five weeks trouble was experienced on a small scale and the police were able to deal with it. Small disturbances occurred. The students were spoken to and they returned quite satisfied to their classrooms. We gained control over and had the situation under control, but there was no incident yesterday. Yesterday the police were quite simply called out after the students had begun to march through the streets. What would have caused that? The hon. member referred to the incident when the colonel’s motor vehicle was set alight. That could have caused riots, and then one could have understood what the cause was. The day before yesterday, however, there was nothing. Suddenly the streets were full of marching students.

Tell them, Colin.

The other question one has to ask oneself, is why the young people walked with their fists in the air. Why do they walk with upraised fists? Surely this is the sign of the Communist Party. I do not want to accuse them of being Communists, but where does this walking with upraised fist come from? Why do they walk through the streets shouting the word “power”? Where do these things among the young people come from? The question also arises: How is it that they are such skilled incendiaries, so much so that we are no longer able to contain the arson? How do they succeed in doing this? I have often found it extremely difficult when I tried to set something alight in the open air. One must know how to set something alight if one wants to set fire to a building or if one wants to set fire to a tractor. One must know something about those things. I think I am entitled to ask why people such as Mr. Beyers Naude referred to language tuition in his speech on 26 May at the Witwatersrand University, when he spoke the following words—

The question which occurs to one is what the “sacrifice” is that they have to make. What are these things which are being asked of the young people by people such as Mr. Beyers Naude? Is it fair to South Africa to ask questions of this kind? In this morning’s Rand Daily Mail Mrs. Winnie Mandela says that Afrikaans is not the cause, and that there is far more to it than just Afrikaans. Then one finds the phenomenon of the Witwatersrand student demonstration this afternoon with the most inflammatory placards. I am just quoting what was written on two of the placards: “Don’t start the revolution without us.” This was what was written on one of the placards: “Don’t start the revolution without us.” We were told: “Give in or fight.” I want to state this evening, in all humility, that it is my task to preserve law and order in this country. I told the Witwatersrand students that I was giving them two days in which to express their feelings in the streets, and I now want to say that it is enough. We will go so far and no further. It is my task to preserve law and order. Arson and murder are very serious offences, and I think that hon. members will support me when I say that the first task of my department and myself is to safeguard South Africa against thugs in the streets of Soweto and other towns.