Mr. Chairman, owing to the intransigence of the hon. the Minister yesterday, I have to waste the time of this Committee this afternoon in repeating a request which I put to the hon. the Minister yesterday in an attempt to elicit from him some indication of whether or not he and the Cabinet are prepared to consider introducing one definition only for the words “advertise” or “advertisement”. As I pointed out yesterday, we have at the moment three Bills with definitions of these words before this House, one of which we are dealing with now. This Bill has a definition of the term “advertise”, a definition which I read to the House yesterday. We also have on the Order Paper at the moment the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Amendment Bill, which has a definition of “advertisement” which, while substantially the same, is completely different. Then we also have before the House the Livestock Improvement Bill, which carries another definition of the word “advertisement”, which again is different. Sir, “advertise” and “advertisement” can only mean one thing, but these definitions are different. If we look into the Statutes which have been passed over the last few years, we find that there are even further variations of this definition, and I believe that the time has come for the Government to make up its mind and to standardize this definition. I do not believe that this is by any means good legislation.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister, who is not versed in the practice of law, that I believe that the definition that we have in this Bill is a very good one. I believe it is a very adequate one, but I wonder if the hon. the Minister could indicate to the Committee what his attitude is, or what his attitude is going to be, regarding the other two definitions which appear in the other two Bills he will handle. Would he also indicate what the attitude of the Cabinet is in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South says that he is quite satisfied with the definition contained in this Bill, but that the concepts in these three Bills are different. However, since the hon. member is satisfied with this definition, I think we may leave it as it is printed at the moment. When the other Bills he mentioned come up for discussion, we can have another look at the matter, and perhaps debate it. However, as far as the advertising of land is concerned, this does in fact include another concept. I could refer, for example, to the previous amendments to this legislation. At that time, for example, there was the matter in connection with the Makadamia farms which were made available and concerning which advertisements were placed in letterboxes. Advertisements are placed in the letter-boxes of flat-dwellers, for example, advertisements in which it is alleged that they may acquire small portions of subdivided land. However, the fact that they will never receive the title deed for it is mentioned in the small print on the reverse side. The concept is the same, although the explanation of the definition is not the same in various pieces of legislation. However, since the hon. member is satisfied with the definition in the clause concerned, I suggest that I provide him with further information when the other pieces of legislation come up for discussion.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I again point out that yesterday I was at pains to explain to the hon. the Minister and to the House exactly what the problem was in this particular clause. However, I find that I am going to have to repeat that argument this afternoon for the sake of the record. Therefore, I am extremely pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has another hon. member with him who will be able to advise him on this particular matter.

Sir, the situation is that we have here an amendment to section 4 of the Act, an amendment which provides that the hon. the Minister, on such conditions as he may deem fit, may grant an application for the subdivision of agricultural land. It further provides that if the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the land which is to be subdivided is not to be used for agricultural purposes, he may consult with the Administrator of the province concerned and allow the subdivision of that agricultural land for use in a non-agricultural sphere, subject to conditions which the Administrator will lay down. Sir, I say “will lay down” advisedly, because as this provision, which is contained in the new section 4(2)(b) is worded here, the Administrator shall determine the conditions under which the subdivisions will be allowed. If one looks at line 26, one sees that it reads as follows—

It is quite correct that the hon. the Minister actually grants the approval for the subdivision, but it is the Administrator who determines the conditions upon which or under which the hon. the Minister is permitted to grant the subdivision.

Mr. Chairman, when we deal with the new section 4(4) and we look at line 37, we see that the hon. the Minister, where he has granted a subdivision of land which is not to be used for a purpose other than agriculture, is now empowered to alter or to withdraw the conditions under which he allowed the subdivision in the first instance. However, in the second case, where the subdivision has been allowed under terms laid down by the Administrator, one would expect to find that the Administrator may vary or withdraw the conditions under which the subdivision was allowed. We find, however, that the Administrator concerned may only vary or withdraw any such conditions “in consultation with the Minister”. Those are the words which are contained in line 39 on page 6 of this Bill. Those words, as we all know, because we have argued this point over and over in this Committee before, imply that if the hon. the Minister does not agree to the variation or withdrawal of those conditions, the Administrator may not vary or alter them. What is happening here, in other words, is that now we give the hon. the Minister the final say as to whether or not the conditions may be varied or may be withdrawn. Two points pertain here. I notice that the legal adviser of the hon. the Minister agrees with my interpretation. I can see he says: “So what; everything is fine.” Nevertheless, I want to put these two points to the hon. the Minister. The first one is that the conditions are determined by the Administrator and that the hon. the Minister has no say in the placing of those conditions. The hon. the Minister on his own, and even in consultation with the Administrator, cannot place any condition on the subdivision of that land if it is to be used for a non-agricultural purpose. The other point is that at the stage when the hon. the Minister is asked to consider a variation, the land will no longer be agricultural land. It will be land which is used for a purpose other than agriculture. I believe that it is only right, proper and fair that the authority which placed the conditions in the first place and the authority which has control over non-agricultural land should have the power to vary, remove or cancel the conditions under which the subdivision was allowed. It is for that reason that I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of the amendment will be that the Administrator concerned, after consultation with the Minister, may vary or cancel the conditions under which the subdivision has been allowed. This means that the Administrator must at least consult with the Minister. The Minister must at least be made aware of the intention of the Administrator to vary or cancel the conditions under which the subdivision has been allowed. I believe that it is adequate that the Minister will be acknowledged in that he will be advised of what is happening, but I believe it is right that the Administrator is the person who should have the final say as to whether the conditions should be varied or cancelled.

Mr. Chairman, the question has been asked whether we can make an exception if we decide that certain land ought to become, say, a caravan park or that the land in question ought to be subdivided into plots of 2% or 5 acres each for residential purposes. I want to point out that jurisdiction regarding conditions in such a case will then rest in the hands of the Administrator concerned. That is why we no longer consider such land as agricultural land and therefore I am not interested in its use any more. I would say that all decisions affecting such land should be taken by the Administrator—decisions, for example, on roads, electricity, etc. or on conditions that he might wish to impose regarding the use of such land.

*For this reason it must fall under the jurisdiction of the Administrator, and consequently these are decisions which have to be taken by the Administrator. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has just addressed me in the most courteous terms he has ever adopted towards me in all the years I have been in this House. He has never spoken to me in a friendlier way, and because he treated me with such civility, I accept his amendment without any further discussion. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Minister’s acceptance with great civility.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was saying that the result of this amendment Bill on expropriation would be that the powers of the provincial councils would be extended to enable them to pay compensation only in certain cases and quite probably to make an ordinance that had been enacted by the Cape Provincial Council last year and which came into effect on 1 January 1977 ultra vires. The amending legislation is with retrospective effect as from 1 January. Another point which I mentioned was the fact that the compensation which is being paid in accordance with the ordinance which was enacted last year by the Cpae Provincial Council, makes no provision for solatium, for which provision is made in section 12 of the Act which is now being amended. In other words, less compensation is in general being paid now because solatium is not being paid. In the second place, no compensation is being paid for the materials or water which are taken, if the water or materials are not exploited commercially.

It seems very strange to me now that further legislation has in fact been introduced this session—and by the hon. Minister of Justice himself, viz. the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Bill (W.54—’77). When one reads clause 4 of that Bill, one sees that it makes provision for an amendment of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Bill, 1968, by adding an additional section after the section which already relates to Sir John Cradock’s proclamation. It reads as follows—

1. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), the repeal by section 1 of the Proclamation dated August 6, 1813, by Sir John Cradock, shall have, from the commencement of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1977, the effect of terminating any right reserved by that Proclamation of making and repairing public roads, and raising materials for that purpose, and any such right embodied in any title deed by virtue of such Proclamation only, shall from the said commencement be of no force and effect.

Confusion now exists because the hon. the Minister of Justice has introduced this revising legislation—I think as a consequence of my plea last year. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is now introducing this amending Bill on expropriation. The fact that this Bill is now being introduced, creates confusion because what is happening now is that the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s Proclamation, which are still applicable, are being declared of no force and effect by the legislation which has already been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture, through the introduction of his Bill, is now making it possible for the Provincial Council, at a provincial level, to make that type of provision which is now being declared of no force and effect by the Bill of the hon. the Minister of Justice applicable again. This situation is completely incomprehensible. It seems to me that there is a conflict in this regard. It is clear that as far as Parliament is concerned, those rights are now of no force and effect, but that this is not the case in so far as the Provincial Councils are concerned. In other words, Parliament states that the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s Proclamation are of no force and effect but in the same breath Parliament also says that it is granting to Provincial Councils the right to enact the same provisions again in the form of provincial ordinances. This is also the case with the Road Ordinance which I referred to yesterday. The Road Ordinance came into operation with effect from 1 January and in my opinion, unless the legislation now before the House is passed, that Ordinance of the Cape Provincial Council cannot be operative because at the moment, and before this legislation is passed, the Ordinance is ultra vires. Of course, it could be said that the legislation which the hon. the Minister of Justice has now introduced and of which we have already had the First Reading, is only applicable to provisions which are already in force and not to provisions which are not yet operative, as they occur here in the provincial ordinance. It seems to me that there is hopeless confusion in regard to this matter. I do not believe that we ought to proceed with the Second Reading before clarity has been reached on this matter. I must say that I am very pleased that the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Justice has introduced, is going to be placed on the Statute Book because it will to a great extent declare the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation to be of no force and effect. How can we afford the Provincial Administration another opportunity, before the end of this session, to include the same provisions in their legislation? In case the hon. the Minister does not follow my argument, I say that this is so because those words are being inserted by clause 1 of his legislation, which amends section 5(1) of the Expropriation Act by providing that—

The words which are now being inserted are “subject to the provisions of section 26(2)”. Because those words are being inserted, the Ordinance of the Cape Provincial Council, which was enacted last year already but which had not come into operation prior to 1 January this year and which is ultra vires, is being made intra vires. I do not think that the hon. the Minister was properly informed when he introduced the Amendment Bill. I see that the hon. the Minister is shaking his head but I regret that the hon. the Minister did not inform us before he introduced the Bill. We must now debate the matter and we on this side of the House do not know what information the hon. the Minister has at his disposal. We do not have a copy of the report of the inter-provincial committee; it has not reached us yet. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has it yet. Nor do I know whether the hon. the Minister intends making it available to us. Unless we can read it and look at what recommendations are being made and why this should be so, I do not see how we can accept the legislation.

For those reasons, we on this side of the House feel that we are unable to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to summarize briefly why we are unable to do so. We cannot support it because we have not seen the report of the inter-provincial committee. We cannot support it because there is tremendous confusion with regard to the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s Proclamation. We cannot support it because we do not know why this legislation should be with retrospective effect. More ever, we cannot support it because farmers will still not be paid any compensation for materials and water taken for road construction purposes unless those materials and that water are exploited commercially. For these reasons, this side of the House will vote against the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke of the confusion which is allegedly prevailing. However, with all due respect to the hon. member, I want to say that if confusion is prevailing at this stage, it must be in his head, confusion which is filtering through from the front benches of his party and is now emerging on a non-contentious level as well, namely in regard to expropriation legislation. The hon. member was a very respected member of a Select Committee which considered the expropriation legislation during the winter session of 1974 and the summer session of 1975. However, the hon. member was not a member of the Committee during 1974, but was only appointed to it later. I think that this is where the mistake arises. His contributions on that committee were of particularly great value, even though he was a little Sir Jack John Cradock de Villiers with his acquaintance with the John Cradock Proclamation. However, the hon. member is completely confused today and I should like to tell him in a nice way that his speech this afternoon and his speech last night before adjournment, do not correspond at all. It was very clear to me that he was marking time last night because he did not know what this was all about and therefore said a lot of things which were quite irrelevant and quite incorrect, things which he had to try and rectify this afternoon. The attack which the hon. member launched on the Minister last night and the criticism which he levelled at the hon. Minister on that occasion, was quite unjustified, quite uncalled for and quite unfounded. His arguments were unfounded. His objection concerns the Sir John Cradock Proclamation and its after-effects. The hon. member spoke about this during the Select Committee of 1975; he also spoke about it during the Second Reading debate of the principal Act here in this House. We know that he has a great aversion to the Sir John Cradock Proclamation. However, I shall soon indicate that almost nothing remained of the Sir John Cradock Proclamation as such after the Cape Ordinance No. 19 of 1976. That hon. member did not read these things correctly. His second objection is to the power which the provinces acquire as a result of the amendment. What is the actual position? In 1974, during the winter session of the House of Assembly, the Select Committee which was charged with this aspect, also went into the question of that land which the provinces need for road construction purposes. At that time that hon. member was not yet a member of the Select Committee, and I must tell the hon. member in all fondness and respect that it does not seem to me as if he has ever read the report of the Select Committee of 1974. Had he read from paragraph 30 of that report, as well as the discussion which follows, he would not have alleged what he did yesterday and today in this debate. During that Select Committee discussion I specifically asked one of the departmental officials the following question—

Then Mr. Van Blommestein of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure replied as follows—

In the paragraphs which follow the first one I quoted, hon. members will find that at that time the Select Committee was fully informed of the problems in connection with expropriation for the purposes of road construction and of the fact that there was an interprovincial committee to investigate this matter. To tell the truth, the chairman of that interprovincial committee appeared before the Select Committee. Then there was every opportunity to go into the matter.

I also found another anomaly in the hon. member’s argument. He must tell us what his or his party’s attitude is towards the specific autonomy which the provincial councils have in regard to specific matters which fall under them and whether he wants intervention on the part of the Central Government in that autonomy. After all, the provincial councils have a right here, whether it has been laid down in terms of the Constitution Act or in other laws, to acquire land for specific purposes, inter alia, for road construction purposes. From time to time they must be able to exercise that right. That is why the provinces were able to institute an inquiry and draw up a report which has already resulted in a new roads ordinance in the Cape Province.

I just want to dwell for a moment on the reference which the hon. member made to the report of the interprovincial committee.

Have you read that report yet?

No. That is not what I want to refer to. I want to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg criticized the Minister for not making that report available.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he has seen or read the interprovincial report?

I have not seen the report. However, I am dealing with that very aspect now. The hon. member for Wynberg criticized the Minister because the report is not available. However, it is an interprovincial report and has nothing to do with this House. If the province wants to make that report available to its members or any other persons, it is quite in order, but it has nothing to do with this House for the purposes of this legislation. An obvious result of the report is found in section 34 of the Cape Roads Ordinance (Ordinance No. 19 of 1976). The hon. member cried about Sir John Cradock’s Proclamation. I want to tell him that section 34 of the Cape Ordinance has already drawn a line through Sir John Cradock’s proclamation. Therefore I do not know why he is still crying about it. He should actually have been singing and dancing yesterday and this morning, because what is stated here? I quote—

It does not say “may”, but “shall”. In other words, it is absolutely compulsory—

In other words, as I understand it—indeed as the hon. member for Wynberg made me understand it—the road authority also has to

for land or anything which is taken under Sir John Cradock’s proclamation as well as those things for which provision is also made in the same section, but which, in my opinion are no longer valid. So, all the crying about Sir John Cradock’s proclamation was unnecessary. It was just a delaying tactic to mark time.

That gentleman has been dead for a long time. Why are they still crying about him?

Secondly the hon. member objected to the fact that the power of the province is being extended a little. There is nothing clandestine, to use a new word, about this. As I said, it was discussed in a Select Committee and is now being expressed in legislation. There are various public bodies in the province that have certain powers which they can exercise. They exercise those powers as they are entitled to do. What is important to me, is that those public bodies took note of the ideal of bringing about uniformity when it comes to expropriations and determining compensation. I have not had a chance to study the whole Cape Ordinance, but I understand that although there are slight differences they tried to adhere to the 1975 Expropriation Act as closely as possible.

The 1975 Expropriation Act came into operation on 1 January 1977. I understand that the Cape Road Ordinance also came into operation on that day. Therefore it is not incomprehensible to me that an amendment which was passed so shortly after the coming into operation of those two statutes, should also be made with retrospective effect because I do not believe that there had yet been any practical implementation of those two Statutes. That is why the amendment is being made with retrospective effect.

Suffice it to say that, as far as I am concerned, we passed uniform legislation in 1975, but in the deliberations of the Select Committee—this also found expression in the legislation which followed—the fact that under certain circumstances certain lower management bodies should, for example, in the case of roads, have the right to be able to deviate a little from that legislation, was understood and accepted. In the case of roads in particular, I believe that they presented sufficient motivation for the necessity of that Act not being rigidly applicable in such cases.

Mr. Speaker, we now have that Act. I do not know what hon. members’ experience of it has been, but I received very favourable comment, from many parts of the country, on that legislation. Everyone is now looking forward in great anticipation to see how the law is now going to be applied in practice. I think that we should give this law a chance to prove itself in practice. As far as I am personally concerned, I hope that this law will be the forerunner of what will eventually lead to complete uniformity in the expropriation procedure for determining compensation for expropriated land in South Africa. I hope that all provincial as well as local bodies will eventually reach the stage where they will fall completely within the law.

I understand this legislation; therefore I support it and hope that in the future we shall continue to guard jealously the uniformity which we have already been able to establish in regard to this matter, and that we shall not detract from it, but shall try to expand it further in future.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the stand of the Official Opposition today. After all, they served on the Select Committee and strongly supported the present Act in the Second Reading. Now, however, they refuse to pass a Bill which in essence makes the 1975 Act operative and viable. If the Opposition were right in supporting the 1975 Act, then they must obviously be wrong in opposing the Bill today. On the other hand, if the Official Opposition are right in opposing the Bill today, then they must obviously have been wrong in supporting the Act in 1975. They cannot have it both ways. This is a sign of muddled thinking.

Why do you not read the Bill?

I have read everything. Seeing that I have been asked to read, I want to read from Hansard from a speech of the hon. member for Green Point, and this is what he had to say (Hansard, Vol. 57, col. 7861)—

He continues in col. 7862 by saying—

He then goes on and motivates very eloquently the reasons why it should be supported. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is always very loath to compliment the Government, but on that occasion the hon. member for Green Point wound up his speech in col. 7864 by saying—

Then there was another hon. member who spoke, and he spoke even more eloquently on that occasion. That was the hon. member for Wynberg. This is what the hon. member for Wynberg said, and I quote from col. 7867—

Who said that?

The hon. member for Wynberg. Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition would have liked it if this legislation had been passed in 1975. To my mind this Bill before us today, a Bill which amends the 1975 legislation, gives the 1975 Act teeth. For the life of me I cannot see what the official Opposition has against this Bill, because this Bill grants the Act the right to operate. The way the official Opposition wants to operate it, would of course make it toothless. I shall come back to that point later.

The hon. member for Wynberg has reservations about compensation payable for road purposes. We also have reservations, but that is not a sufficient ground for rejecting this Bill. If the Bill were rejected, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, he will not be certain whether it is his function or that of the hon. the Minister of Justice to implement the compensation courts. If we rejected this Bill today, we would have a situation where compensation courts could not be established. If that were the case, certain people in South Africa, property owners throughout the country, would suffer damages amounting to thousands of rands. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the official Opposition to be serious in their opposition to this Bill. I want to appeal to the official Opposition … The argument used by the hon. member for Wynberg has many valid points in it, but it is an argument which should be used in the Cape Provincial Council. This is not the place for that sort of argument.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has raised very interesting matters regarding the compensation and the material for roads, material which is taken. I shall deal with the matter again later. The hon. member for Wynberg wants to bury Sir John Cradock’s proclamation, but I was under the impression that the hon. the Minister had agreed in 1975 that that proclamation be buried. I cannot understand now whether it has been buried or not. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. the Minister that at the burial of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation no one will shed any tears, and the sooner it is done the better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that, despite this Bill, he will approach the Administrators again in an effort to ensure that property owners are fully and properly compensated for the usage of material for road building purposes. I realize it is not his function, but I want to appeal to him to approach the Administrators so that we can get uniformity in this matter.

You will get nowhere with appeals to that hon. Minister!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London City says I shall get nowhere with appeals, but I want to tell that hon. member that the Cape Provincial Council is sitting in ten days’ time. That appeal can be lodged there, or is that hon. member worried that there will not be a single member of the UP there to launch that appeal? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has had the Act on the Statute Book since 1975, and we are most disappointed that all the formalities and the implementation of the Act have not been complied with. Even though the Act has been in operation since January 1975, the compensation courts have not yet been established. The hon. the Minister knows that there were approximately 60 different Acts and ordinances dealing with expropriation procedures and matters before the Act was introduced. We welcomed the Act at the time because it provided for uniform expropriation procedures to be applicable to all expropriation bodies. The delay in implementing this particular Act is due to a ministerial entanglement, and we are pleased to see that the two hon. Ministers are now going to disentangle themselves. As can be seen from the Bill before us, it is the hon. the Minister of Justice who will now have the powers to establish and to appoint the president of the compensation courts. In terms of the Act, as it now stands, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to establish the compensation courts, something which he has failed to do timeously. Now he is passing the buck to the hon. the Minister of Justice, who, he knows is already overloaded.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are going to accept the Bill. However, in this debate we are going to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a categoric assurance that the implementation of this Bill will take place as a matter of extreme urgency. The reason for the urgency is that under the 1975 Act there is very real effort fully to compensate people whose properties have been expropriated and who are affected by expropriation. It stands to reason that for as long as we delay the implementation of the 1975 Act, those people and property owners will keep suffering. The amended subsection 26 to be inserted by clause 3 deals with the expropriation, taking or using of property by a provincial administration for the purposes of constructing and maintaining a public road.

When introducing the 1975 Bill, the hon. the Minister indicated that an exception was being made in respect of the procedure followed by provincial and local authorities in taking or using land for the construction or maintenance of public roads. The hon. the Minister said that in order to achieve uniformity there were going to be established provincial inter-departmental committees and that there were recommendations that were going to be made to the Administrators. As we have heard, an ordinance was as a result introduced in the Cape Province, viz. Ordinance No. 19 of 1976, and in terms of section 34 of that ordinance compensation may be paid according to a formula. We also feel that that formula, that basis, is not good enough, but, once again, this is a matter which must be debated in the Cape Provincial Council. The council will have an early opportunity, at its next session.

I want to say that this is an improvement to the existing provision, and I think that it is only right that I should compliment the hon. member for Wynberg. During his years as a member of the Cape Provincial Council, and later in Parliament, the hon. member strongly pleaded the cause of the property owners whose land and material were taken for road purposes. It may seem strange that I praise the hon. member for Wynberg, but I can tell you quite candidly that I was present on the occasions in the Cape Provincial Council and in Parliament when, during very heated debates, he made an impassioned plea on behalf of the property owners, especially in the Cape Province, and for that we must compliment him today. [Interjections.]

We would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the compensation courts will be set up as a matter of urgency. I realize that in the future it will be the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to set up these compensation courts, but the hon. the Minister of Agriculture must take the blame for the delay that we have had up to now. It is up to him to lean heavily on the hon. the Minister of Justice to ensure that these compensation courts start operating as soon as possible during this very year.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches supported this original Bill when it came before this House and we do not oppose this amendment. However, I would just like to say one or two things in response to the argument of the hon. gentleman on my right, because, with great respect, it was much ado about nothing. We too did not see the report of the interprovincial committee, but that will not influence us to vote against the Bill, because we have looked carefully at the Bill. As I understand the argument by the hon. member for Wynberg, it is that Sir John Cradock’s provisions were eliminated by the hon. the Minister of Justice and are now being resurrected by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. But what does the Bill say? The Bill says that its provisions shall not derogate from the provisions of any other law. That means that this Bill will not interfere with, detract from or affect any other existing rights. I cannot see how one can then argue that rights are being eliminated as this clearly says it will not affect any rights that already exist. This Bill will not create any powers in any way at all. It will not import any powers. It simply states that it will not derogate from existing powers. To argue the other way is to do violence to the language of ordinary human beings. We are in any event not concerned only with the Cape Provincial Council, but also with other provincial councils. This Bill must proceed because the other provincial councils cannot possibly be held up. The other argument used by the hon. member for Wynberg was an argument relating to compensation for materials and water, but that is not what this Bill is about at all. All the Bill does in this regard is to alter the question of expropriation, and that alone. The Bill has nothing to do with such powers as provincial and local authorities exercise, for example in section 34 of the Cape Ordinance 19 of 1976. The Bill does not alter that in any way whatsoever. I want to raise just one more point. The last clause, clause 4 of the Bill, gives the Bill retrospective effect in that it will come into operation on 1 January 1977.

If in the normal course, if there were any operation with retrospective effect which affected the right of any individual, we would oppose it. The way I understand this Bill, it seems to me that no rights are taken away from anybody. It is in fact not derogating from any rights which they have already. That seems to me to be the situation. I am not perfectly clear as to why it is to be retrospective, except that I make an assumption. I have noticed that ordinance 19 of 1976 in the Cape operates from 1 January 1977. It may be that is the reason. I would like the hon. the Minister in his reply to say why it is retrospective. But in view of the fact that it does not seem to take away any rights, we do not oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister knows I had the honour of serving on the Select Committee. I think there are one or two aspects of the matter which have been raised here which, I believe, have not been put in their correct perspective. Our problem with the hon. member for Waterkloof, who indicated that he had to leave the Chamber for a moment, is that he well knows that during those long discussions in the Select Committee, our one particular aim and difficulty was to secure uniformity on three bases. The first was the method of expropriation, the second the basis of compensation and the third the right of access to the courts or other judicial bodies. We agreed unanimously on the recommendations which came forward in that regard. It was obviously not possible to deal with all the problems. The hon. member for Walmer—if he read the whole of the debate of 1975—would have noted that the hon. member for Wynberg specifically raised the problem which existed in the Cape Province because of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation. At that stage, or sometime during that debate, the hon. the Minister said it was a “skandalige ding” that this particular proclamation was still in force in the Cape Province. Now, we know that in legislation which will come before us later the whole proclamation is to be repealed—by other legislation; not this Bill.

What the hon. the Minister has done in the measure we have before us—and I think the hon. member for Newton Park will recall this—is to remove the element of solatium from compensation. The province does not have to provide for that form of compensation. The Bill is, therefore, reducing the basis of compensation. It is all very well to say that local authorities—and that is the second point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister— should be permitted to take gravel, ground and water for maintenance purposes. It has to be done in the general interest. But why should one individual be deprived of the value of his assets for the benefit of the community without any compensation? That is what has been happening under Sir John Cradock’s proclamation. By introducing this measure the hon. the Minister is giving powers to the province to continue legislating on a basis which is not in conformity with the Expropriation Act which was passed in 1975. That is the effect of what the hon. the Minister is doing. He has kept his word, because legislation is coming forward to repeal the Sir John Cradock proclamation, but it is not worth anything because of the legislation which is now before the House. This brings me to the retrospectivity of the matter, also raised by the hon. member for Durban North, namely that the Cape Provincial Council has passed an ordinance dealing with roads which does not make adequate provision for compensation as would be required in terms of the Expropriation Act. They have passed the ordinance and it will become effective when this Bill is made retrospective to 1 January of this year. The object of that is to cover the position as it exists in the Cape Province.

Another matter I want to deal with is the question of autonomy—as the hon. member for Waterkloof put it—of local authorities. Every attempt has been made in this vexed matter of the deprival of a man’s property to ensure that there is a uniform basis of compensation. There is no interference with autonomy if one says that if you do take a man’s property away from him, if it is expropriated against his will, he shall be compensated on a certain basis. This Bill now provided for a departure from that.

Finally, in regard to the implementation of this legislation, it is true—as the hon. the Minister has said—that there is some doubt as to whether the hon. the Minister of Justice or the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is to perform certain duties. The hon. the Minister will know, and I am sure will recollect, that I wrote to him early last year six months after the present Act had been approved by Parliament and inquired why on earth we could not have the legislation in operation. I did this because there were many cases of expropriation in which people were not getting justice because the Bill had not been brought into operation. The hon. the Minister’s reply to me then—that was 12 to 14 months ago—was that he was waiting for the Department of Justice to draw up the regulations required for the compensation courts. The hon. member for Walmer now suggests that we should pass this legislation because the hon. the Minister and Trustee’s responsibility will be clarified. That could have been done last year, because the matter was pertinently before the Government in regard to this one particular aspect of changing or defining the Minister for his particular purpose. It is, however, a minor issue today in relation to what is being done by way of the deprivation of property against compensation not in accordance with the basic principles recommended by the Select Committee. This has been enacted by the Cape Provincial Council contrary to those principles and the Bill before us is going to give force and effect to that particular ordinance of the Cape.

Mr. Speaker, I think the major point that arises is whether in terms of the law as we now propose to amend it a provincial administration should or should not have certain powers. [Interjections.] The gravamen of the argument of the hon. member for Green Point is that he wants this legislation to prevent a provincial legislator from legislating in a manner which he disapproves of. This is the gravamen of his argument.

I referred to the deprivation of compensation for the individual.

The hon. member does not listen to me; he simply keeps on talking like a gramophone. [Interjections.] Can the hon. member not stop for one minute to listen? It is very difficult to listen when one’s mouth is working. [Interjections.] The hon. member has no substance for his argument and now thinks that by babbling and babbling substance is created where substance does not exist. But to babble and babble is not a substitute for a legal argument. I want to repeat that the real crux of the matter is that the official Opposition does not wish this to be passed because they believe—and it exists in the Cape—that there is a certain provision in a certain ordinance which is going to replace the Sir John Cradock proclamation in terms of which they will again be able to do certain things without giving adequate compensation. The point is that in the Cape Provincial Council that ordinance should have been opposed on the merits of the case, namely that you should not have that type of legislation without provision being made for adequate compensation. The principle that we are dealing with is, however, a different one. The principle that we are dealing with is whether a Provincial Council should be able to legislate in respect of matters which pertain to it or whether we should prescribe to it whether there should or should not be a particular type of compensation on the basis that the hon. member for Green Point has suggested. The argument goes completely contrary to the whole concept which I have had to listen to for days and days in regard to Sunday observance. Either a province should be able to legislate for itself and determine for itself what is right or wrong on a local basis, or it should not. Either Natal should be able to legislate on Sunday observance or it should not. Should they be allowed to do so, then the Cape should be allowed to legislate in regard to this compensation procedure. If it is necessary, in terms of a fundamental principle of natural justice, for this Legislature to intervene-—because we are not a federal body, but purely a unitary body—then this body has the power to intervene. That is really what the whole argument is about. What the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Wynberg want to do is to take away the provincial autonomy in respect of this matter. I do not care what they want to do in the Cape, but I want them to leave my Transvaal alone … [Interjections.] As far as the Transvaal Provincial Council is concerned, we would like to have a degree of autonomy because as far as the provinces are concerned, they should have the maximum ability to govern themselves. That is in accordance with our fundamental belief of the decentralization of power and that is why we believe in a federal system. However, one has to practise what one preaches. If one believes in decentralization of power and in the fundamental concept of federalism then the arguments of these two hon. members are a lot of nonsense, because they do not believe in federalism. When local powers are to be exercised they want to come along to big brother and say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture: “Do not allow them locally to do this. Step in and stop them. ” That is really what the whole crux of the matter is, and that is why as far as we are concerned we will support this measure and oppose what the UP wants in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing for several years now about Sir Jack Cradock de Villiers, or whatever his name is. What we are succeeding in doing here today, and what the provinces have succeeded in doing, is to amend the very same Cradock principle that a person’s land may be taken without compensation. The hon. member for Yeoville made a few statements which the hon. member for Wynberg may feel bad about. This hon. member really contradicted himself. The hon. member said: “Practise what you preach.” I have listened to the arguments of the hon. member as to why provincial interests should be protected, and he performed a complete somersault. He became quite disgruntled and was unable to tell me that the measure did not improve the position of the farmer and the landowner. If the hon. member read the ordinance correctly, he would have seen what was contained in section 34(1). We have discussed this matter before in this House. The hon. member for Waterkloof was chairman of the committee on which the hon. member also served and which had to go into all these aspects. Each and every point was explained very clearly to the hon. member. Today the ordinance lays down that a person be compensated and there is also a formula which is applied when his gravel is taken for road construction purposes. Do hon. members know that one is paid the market value in the Transvaal? Every inhabitant of the Cape, the Transvaal, Natal or the Free State is allowed to appeal to this Expropriation Act. However, I know of so many cases in the Transvaal where somebody is paid the market price for routing purposes. However, if it is a plot or a site and gravel has to be collected from such a plot, the province argues that that land is so valuable that they would rather travel another eight km, 10 km or 15 km because one cannot damage a plot two morgen in extent by digging a hole in it. However, if one is dealing with an economic agricultural unit and only a quarter of a morgen or one-eighth of a morgen is required for the digging of gravel, the owner will ask out of piety— because he will use the road himself-—for the hole to be dug in such a way that it could be used to store water. He does not necessarily want money for it. That sort of thing is solved through mutual negotiations. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for pleading for the protection of the landowner. I appreciate it. However, he should look at the practical aspects. I am quite amazed that he is able to say today that he opposes this legislation. I cannot believe it.

Because there will be no solatium.

That hon. member mentioned solatium. There is a determination for some routing projects, and compensation, i.e. solatium is also added. These are cases where the road is routed in such a way that it cannot easily reach the unit. Negotiations are then conducted with the owner and he is offered a thoroughfare, for example an overhead bridge or a subway. Various things are done to compensate such people. However, the main point I wish to make is that they can resort to this Act. Previously a person had half of nothing and now he has a law in terms of which he can claim compensation.

†The hon. member for Durban North agrees about the retrospective clause. The hon. member for Walmer also asked about the retrospective aspect, as did, I think, the hon. member for Wynberg.

*I think the hon. member for Durban North is right in that respect. We are not depriving people of their rights. However, this ordinance will be in operation with effect from 1 January and any transaction which took place since that date up to the date of the coming into operation of this legislation hangs in mid air. We also want that aspect covered now. Those transactions must also be included as well and for that reason the legislation is with retrospective effect. As has been said by the hon. member, we are not depriving anybody of his rights. The hon. member for Waterkloof furnished such clear replies to the other points that I do not know whether there is any need for me to deal with any of them again.

What about the commission’s report?

Yes, the report. It is a very strange thing the hon. member is asking there. But before I forget, the hon. member for Green Point spoke about the delay. Comments from 38 bodies had to be obtained before the legislation could be put into effect. One cannot merely pilot this legislation through Parliament. Also, a compensation court has to be established. All these negotiations took place. With effect from 1 January 1977 steps will be taken in practice in terms of the Expropriation Act. There are no more delays. All that is creating problems now, is the compensation court on which the hon. the Minister of Justice has to decide. I can give the assurance that that aspect is about to be finalized. What was the other question?

The report of the commission.

The hon. member for Waterkloof—is he here?—stated quite clearly that it was an interprovincial report which belonged to the provinces. The hon. member for Walmer also said that the hon. member should address the questions he put to me, to the provincial council. That report has nothing to do with this matter.

Mr. Speaker, when he introduced this legislation, the hon. the Minister mentioned the interprovincial report in his Second Reading speech. That is why I am asking him whether he has seen it and whether I can see it.

I did not see the interprovincial report, and I am not interested in it either. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I shall let him have the report if he wants to see it. I have only been informed of what is contained in the report. I was told that there would be co-ordinated action between the provinces in future. I was informed that the Cradock arrangement lapses as far as the Cape Province is concerned. These were the recommendations and this is all I wanted to know. That was all I was interested in. What it amounts to, is that one is no longer allowed to deprive a farmer in the Cape Province of his land without compensation. Why should I read that report if there are more interesting books to read? I shall let the hon. member have the report; he can then make a short summary of it. This matter belongs to the provinces and what is contained in the report does not concern me, as long as the principle is accepted that one is not allowed to deprive a person of his land without compensation. This is what worried the hon. member for Wynberg, and I appreciate it. It is unethical to deprive someone of his land without compensating him for it. However, the hon. member should have got up yesterday and supported me because he has been talking about Cradock for years—I have come to think that they are related to one another. He has been talking about Cradock for years, but although I did do what he asked, he is still not satisfied. I simply do not understand it. I do not think the hon. member is going to vote against this legislation. He is not that stupid.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the main objective of this Bill is to make provision for the appointment of a vice-registrar of land surveyors and to empower the Central Council of Land Surveyors to arrange for the insurance of members and officials of the council. In terms of the principal Act a registrar of land surveyors must be appointed. The Act imposes certain duties and responsibilities on the registrar, but does not, unfortunately, make provision for a substitute when the registrar is temporarily absent. This shortcoming in the Act is inconvenient, and the Central Council of Land Surveyors has requested that provision be made for the appointment of a vice-registrar. He will assist the registrar in performing his duties and will act for the registrar when the registrar is not available.

†The proposed amendment in regard to the provision of insurance cover for members and officials of the council has also been requested by the council. The council feels that it has an obligation to provide such cover for its members and officials in view of the long distances which they often have to travel in the course of the performance of their functions. Any member of the council who is in the full-time service of the State is excluded from this provision as such a person is covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941.

A land surveyor who has been found guilty of improper or disgraceful conduct can be disqualified by the council for registration as a land surveyor under the Act. The Act, however, does not empower the registrar to remove the name of such land surveyor from the register, and the purpose of clause 4 is to remedy this shortcoming.

Mr. Speaker, the Land Surveyors’ Registration Amendment Bill provides for the appointment of a vice-registrar of land surveyors, as the hon. the Minister has just said. We think it is desirable and important for there to be someone who can assist the registrar and also act in his place when the registrar is not available.

A registrar and a vice-registrar cannot be appointed or dismissed without the approval of the Minister. We also welcome this measure because it empowers the Central Council of Land Surveyors to arrange insurance cover with regard to accidents which may result in injuries, disability or even the death of the registrar, the vice-registrar, officials or members. This amending Bill also makes provision for the removal of the names from the register of persons who are registered as land surveyors and who have been declared unfit. We see all these provisions as being essential.

I consulted both the chairman of the regional office of the Land Surveyors’ Institute and the chairman of the National Institute of Land Surveyors in South Africa and they do not have any objection to this legislation either. In fact, it would appear to me as though they requested some of these measures. Therefore the official Opposition supports the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the responsible Opposition also support the Second Reading of this Bill. Like the official Opposition, we did not receive any complaints from the land surveyors themselves either, and consequently we assume that they support the legislation. We believe that the appointment of a vice-registrar is an improvement on the Act. The same holds for the insurance of officials, the registrar and the vice-registrar against accidents in the course of the performance of their duties. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also support this Bill. Obviously the appointment of a vice-registrar and the provisions of insurance cover are good provisions. It is also common sense that in terms of clause 4 the registrar should be able to remove from the register the names of people who are temporarily disqualified. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the three parties for their support. I really appreciate it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before dealing with the Bill, I should first like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the chairman and members of the Select Committee on both sides of the House for the time and energy devoted since 1974 to investigating the operation of the Electoral Consolidation Act (1946) and for the report published by them towards the end of the 1976 session of this House. Although the report, which attests to penetrating investigation, has still to be studied with a view to making proposals for the amendment of the electoral laws in this House during 1978, it will appear that the recommendations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 already serve as a basis for the proposals contained in the Bill.

The first and chief aim of the Bill is contained in clause 1, read in conjunction with clause 8, in which it is proposed, as an amendment of clause 6 of the electoral laws, that from 1 July 1978 no one will be entitled to be registered as a voter or, even though his name is already on a voters’ roll, to remain registered as a voter, or to vote at an election of a member of the House of Assembly, or of a provincial council of the province, or of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, unless an identity document is issued to him in terms of the Population Registration Act No. 30 of 1950, or the Identity Documents in South West Africa Act, Act No. 37 of 1970. The Select Committee unanimously recommended as follows in this connection (S.C. 7—’76, p. viii)—

Consequently, since 12 July 1976, priority has been given to the inclusion of, inter alia, White South African citizens of 18 years and older in the population register. The public is being informed about this intention and the reasons for it, inter alia, by way of Press statements on 12 July 1976 and 25 August 1976. Up to and including 31 December 1976, 3 485 496 people’s names, 1711 662 of which were the names of such citizens, had been included in the register. On 31 December 1976, 2 266 108 voters’ names were on the voters’ roll for the Republic and South West Africa. The Department of the Interior took the necessary steps to issue identity documents to all White South African citizens of 18 years and older before 1 July 1978, viz. people who would otherwise have been entitled to register as voters for the election of members of the House of Assembly and of the Provincial Councils or of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and who are not yet in possession of such documents at this stage and have not yet applied for them.

Compiling voters’ rolls and keeping them up to date by way of the population register will be more effective, as the Select Committee also found, and will involve a substantial saving in labour and State funds. The total cost of the general registration of voters, which at present amounts to about R2 million, and the cost of the continual registration and the deletion of voters, which costs about R180 000 annually, will therefore be saved. At this stage I should like to make an appeal once again to all hon. members of the House, and to the members of their organizations in the constituencies, and to all other interested parties, to encourage all potential voters to apply for identity documents without delay, if they have not already done so, and, as soon as they are in possession of such documents or already possess them, to notify their change of address faithfully and punctually by merely filling in and posting the notification in the back of the book. Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat my request to all the parties in the House to co-operate so that there can be a continuous flow of registration and so that the department is not swamped by registration applications in the last two or three months before an election. Anything of the kind could make it impossible to feed all the relevant details into the computer in time.

The second important principle in this Bill is contained in clause 2(a) in which it is proposed, as was also recommended by the Select Committee, that the interval between general registrations of voters be extended from five years to six years. The last general registration of voters began on 24 July 1972 and, in terms of the present provisions contained in section 8(1) of the Electoral Law, the next general registration of voters has therefore to start not later than 24 July 1977. It is now being proposed that if necessary, the next general registration of voters only begin on 24 July 1978.

It is stressed that only if it should appear that the number of applications for identity documents by prospective voters is in sufficient, will a general registration of voters be held, and then only as proposed in clause 2(b), by retaining on voters’ rolls the names of voters that have not moved out of the constituencies in which they registered as voters, and are otherwise still qualified to register as voters. The names of people that have moved or have otherwise become disqualified, who remain registered as voters— this includes those to whom an identity document has not been issued before 1 July 1978—will be removed from the voters’ rolls on which they were registered and such people will only be included in the voters’ rolls applicable to the address to which they have moved if they are in possession of identity documents and are otherwise qualified to be registered as voters. If the expectation that a sufficient number of White South African citizens of 18 years and older acquire identity documents before 1 July 1978 is fulfilled, there will be an opportunity to come to the House with a proposal aimed at finally abolishing the general registration of voters and compiling voters’ rolls from the population register.

It is further provided in clause 2(b) that section 8 of the electoral laws is being amended so that if a general registration of voters were to take place, applications for registration as voters may be lodged with magistrates or electoral officers during a period of 90 days instead of a period of 42 days after the day on which such a general registration begins, as is at present the case. It was also evident from the investigation carried out by the Select Committee that the period of 42 days was too short to enable all qualified persons to register as voters.

The other amendments proposed in the Bill are, for the most part, of a consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, in referring to the Select Committee of which the hon. the Chief Whip of the Government was chairman, I have to be careful in the words that I use lest, because of my singing his praises today, it be thought that for all time I am bound to support everything that he might do in relation to the subject now under discussion. The hon. member for Walmer made a remark along these lines this afternoon when I praised the chairman of another Select Committee.

However, I want to say sincerely from this side of the House that we appreciate the work of the hon. the Chief Whip on the Government benches as chairman of the Select Committee. We are also appreciative of the speedy way in which we were able to get through the work, something which is much due to his assistance and guidance. It was very useful to have on a Select Committee of this sort the wisdom and the value of the opinions of a man so steeped in electoral procedures, both the written and the unwritten procedures which are adopted at election time.

Turning to the measure before us, I want to say, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, that it follows on certain of the recommendations of the Select Committee. I trust that other matters such as access to TV and so on will also rapidly be brought upon the Statute Book at a later stage. In so far as the Bill is concerned, we support it. It is quite clear that the efficacy of what we are trying to do and the end result will depend on the effective and timely completion of the issue of identity documents. In the course of the deliberations of the Select Committee and on other occasions we have had assurances from the secretary of the department of the hon. the Deputy Minister that this can be done by the middle of next year. I appreciate and I am sure that hon. members who have visited the offices of the secretary in Pretoria also appreciate the considerable difficulties which he has and the problems which arise from day to day. I am referring particularly to the problems encountered in avoiding delays in the issue of identity documents. There are some inexplicable delays, but they should perhaps be dealt with later when we deal with the appropriate Vote. What is interesting is some of the figures which are material to this new system when it comes into operation. We understand that at the present moment it is estimated that every year some 400 000 voters change their address, but of this large number only about 140 000 changes reach the department’s office in the normal and official way under the Electoral Act. The changes which are being recorded under the identity documents system are considerably higher in number than those which ever find their way without pressure on to the voters’ rolls.

I have dealt with the delays, but there is also the question of queries which do arise. I have been appalled to find that it is necessary to keep a considerable number of files and quite a considerable space. I am informed by the secretary that at the present moment there are some 100 000 files which deal with applications that cannot be completed because the full information has not been supplied by the applicants. This is a considerable number of files to have to be dealt with in this way. I mention it as another one of the problems. Another problem, a problem which, I am sure, is experienced in the department as elsewhere, is the changing of staff. Large numbers of people get into a routine then leave to take up another job. It so often happens.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can assure us that from time to time he has consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and that he can assure us that any of the requirements of the Secretary with regard to assistance, be it personnel or otherwise, receives urgent attention so that he can complete this task. These requirements must receive urgent attention as far as he and the Government generally are concerned. The question is how this is to be done. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that there are some 500 000 to a million people to whom identity documents will have to be issued within the ensuing year. One can imagine the difficulties. It is like taking out a motor-car licence. How many people are going to wait until the last to apply instead of applying immediately? It has occurred to me—and I wonder whether it is not a practical suggestion which the hon. the Minister can consider—to try to concentrate appeals in regions of the Republic. What I have in mind, is using such media as regional or local newspapers which might deal with a certain area or part of a province and that there be a concentrated campaign promoted by the department in that particular area to get people in that area to send in their applications. Similarly the regional services of the SABC could be used to make an appeal to people, region by region, to make their applications for their identity documents. I think in that way it might be more effective than trying to sustain a general appeal to people throughout the Republic to send in their applications. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give an indication as to whether it would be possible from the records which are kept by the department, when on 1 July 1978 this Bill becomes operative to ascertain the names which have not yet been put on to the voter’s roll, because the persons concerned have not taken out their identity documents. Will it be possible to identify those persons who are qualified to be registered as voters and are on the population register, but because of not having identity documents, have not been transferred on to the electoral or voter’s roll. Is it possible that those people can be formally notified that they are on the population register, but have not been transferred to the voter’s roll because of the fact that they have failed to make an application for their identity documents? One does not want to have people disenfranchised because they did not fill in their forms.

The Bill before the House is supported by us on this side of the House, and I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could deal with the points which I have raised in the court of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Green Point for their reference to the work carried out in this regard by the Select Committee over a period of more than two years. I also want to convey my appreciation to the members of the committee on both sides of the House and also, in particular, to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to certain matters, and as far as this hon. member is concerned, I must bow to his superior knowledge. The hon. member rendered yeoman’s service to me in this regard. Between the two of us we achieved a great deal and were at least able to come to Parliament with a measure which, for the most part, had been agreed upon.

I want to associate myself very strongly with the appeal made by the hon. the Minister to political parties and the voting public to react and to apply timeously for identity documents. It is our experience that, left to themselves, people show very little enthusiasm as far as their registration as voters is concerned, and when they get to the ballot-box and their names do not appear on the roll, they accuse the organizations of the political parties of having failed in their duties. I want to stress that it is of vital importance to us that the objective set by the department, and by all of us, should be achieved, viz. that sufficient progress be made with the inclusion of the names of White voters in the population register to enable the Government to decide next year without hesitation to do away with general registrations and to introduce the population register as a basis for the compiling of voters’ rolls. A scheme of this nature entails tremendous advantages, which I do not want to discuss at greater length at this stage because this is perhaps not the time to do so. There will be an opportunity for this when the amendments which are proposed in the report and which, it is hoped, will come before the House next year, are discussed. At this point I want to content myself with the statement that it will involve enormous advantages if we can have the population register as the instrument on which to base our voters’ rolls.

In the meantime, provision is being made to have another general registration should this prove necessary. I really hope that it will not be necessary, because a general registration of voters—however good it may be— never provides what is expected of it. It involves a vast amount of work and great expense for the department, and this applies to the political parties as well. It involves a lot of red tape in which the game is often not worth the candle. To give hon. members some idea of what is involved, I want to point out that a general registration can be effected in two ways. One is that provided for in the existing Act, viz. to have a basic survey. All the voters’ rolls and old existing indexes are done away with and a basic survey is carried out. In this connection it is our experience that a correct but very incomplete voter’s roll is obtained in this way. We have to take into account the fact that the department has to make use of the services of thousands of temporary people to carry out the door-to-door survey. These people are often untrained and more interested in the remuneration for the survey than dedicated to the task they have to perform. It is understandable, therefore, that after a survey of this nature there will be a number of people whose names do not appear on the voters’ roll although in law they are permitted to appear thereon. A major task therefore rests on the political parties to get the provisional voters’ roll which is made available, more up to date. However it is also true that we are not always able to iron out all the mistakes in time. It is usually on the first election day that a number of people who have stayed at the same address for years find out that they are no longer on the voters’ roll. Usually this causes a great deal of dissatisfaction and frustration. This is the present system and procedure to which a change is being proposed, so that there will only be a supplementary survey. In other words, the old indexes are retained and corrected and supplemented from constituency to constituency. Our experience in this regard is, however, that although one has a very comprehensive voters’ roll, it is not as correct when one carries out a supplementary survey of this nature. This is due to the fact that the names of many people who no longer have to be registered at a certain place and with whom those carrying out the survey have not taken much trouble, simply remain on the voters’ roll. One also gets a large number of duplicate registrations although the computerization of the voters’ index has resulted in very rapid tracing of duplicate registrations. However, the fact remains that a supplementary survey of this nature gives one a more complete although less correct voters’ roll. The Select Committee had to choose the lesser of the two evils and was unanimous in its view that owing to the methods of eliminating the mistakes which can occur in a supplementary survey of this nature, methods made possible by the use of the computer, it is now necessary for the Act to be amended as is now being proposed here. Throughout the time I have been in politics, we have amended this provision of the Act after every general registration of voters. The Act contains certain provisions, but whenever we have had a general survey of voters, the people have been so dissatisfied that we have amended it to provide for a basic survey, for example. After the subsequent general registration we again change it to provide for a supplementary survey.

This is why I say that it is our task as politicians to ensure that the goal the department sets itself—we as a Select Committee also set ourselves that goal—is something we must encourage among our people, that we ourselves must take a hand in and ensure that it is decided next year to do away with the general surveys so that the voters’ rolls may be based on the population register. Having a voters’ roll based on the population register entails many advantages for elections. However, I do not want to go into this now, but this way of compiling a voters’ roll is better in some respects than the way we have done it thus far and I just want to refer briefly to these aspects. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the State incurred heavy expenditure, viz. more than R2 million, every time it undertook a general registration of voters. Subsequently the political parties have to spend thousands more rands in rectifying the mistakes made during the survey. However, if one could use the population register for this purpose, one would have a far more complete and correct voters’ roll than is the case at present. It would be more correct because it would not be possible for people to have their names on the voters’ roll who are not qualified to be on it. Hon. members can now ask me how this could happen, but it does happen that people with non-White identity cards have taken part in elections because their names have appeared on the voters’ roll. I have had such cases in my own constituency. This also happens in cases where people are not naturalized, but their names have also appeared on the voters’ roll and they are able to vote. This is possible under the present system, but it will no longer be possible when we compile the voters’ roll from the population register. However, not only will it be a more correct voters’ roll, it will also be a more comprehensive one, because it will not longer be possible to disenfranchise a voter. Once a person possesses an identity document, if he does not die or is not disqualified in terms of the other reasons prescribed by the Act, his name will remain on the voters’ roll. It will never be possible to disenfranchise him although his name may not appear on the voters’ roll in the constituency where he lives. It will be possible to ascribe this to the fact that he has not notified his change of address.

However, he can never be disenfranchised. The worst that can happen to him is that his name might not appear on the voters’ roll in the constituency where he lives, and it is for this very reason that I shall be dealing in a moment with the issue of changes of address, something that is so essential. Another advantage which such a system entails is that there will be automatic registration of 18 year-olds. At the moment, when a person turns 18 years old, an R.V. 1 application form has to be completed for him, and there are literally thousands of these people who are not on the voters’ roll because they simply cannot be reached in many constituencies because the organization is inadequate. When these people are not reached, they are not placed on the voters’ roll. In some countries that we visited, a person’s name is placed on the voters’ roll when he is 17 years old. His date of birth is then indicated in brackets after his name, so that if a by-election takes place in the subsequent period, and it takes place after the person has turned 18 years, he is automatically able to vote. We do not have that provision in our electoral laws. However, it will now be possible to press a button at a given moment and everyone who is 18 years old at that date may appear on the voters’ roll. It will also be far easier to keep the voters’ roll up to date from data extracted from the population register because it is now purely a matter of notification of address. Although at present it is referred to as change of address in the Electoral Act, every time a person changes his address within a constituency, he has to fill in a new R.V. 1 application form. Often the information provided with regard to such a change of address differs substantially from that provided on a previous occasion. On a second occasion the person may fill in two or three of his four Christian names and he might also fill in a different date of birth. This cause major problems when voters’ rolls have to be kept up to date. However, problems of this kind, too, will now be eliminated. The registration of voters will therefore be done away with entirely. It will merely be a question of notification of change of address. That is why the change of address is of such importance. Our people in South Africa do not concern themselves much about changes of address.

The other day someone said that the Government in this country knew nearly everything about a person except what his true address was. The State wants to know everything about him, but it does not insist on knowing where he lives. What is more, this is true. It causes problems in the implementation of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act has for years laid down that a person has to notify his change of address, and failure to do so is punishable. But no Government has ever enforced this, because if one wants to enforce it, one has to prosecute people, and which Government will prosecute voters that must vote for it in the next election. [Interjections.] My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point, will agree with me that the percentage of the population on the move in the established Western democratic countries such as West Germany, France and England is much smaller than that in South Africa. Perhaps the hon. member can correct me, but I think that in general, the percentage of the population that is on the move in those countries is about 20%. However in our country, there is at least double that number of people changing their address every year. This creates a major problem if people are not disciplined to notify their changes of address. The Population Registration Act provides that if a person does not notify his change of address within 14 days, he can be penalized. The Population Registration Act also provides that an identity document is not complete if the latest address of the holder does not appear on it. However, that is not enough. If we want to utilize the maximum potential and endless possibilities which this system entails, we have to insist from the outset that if we do not get people’s changes of address, we shall take action against them. We must not again create the precedent under the present system that people can do as they like. We must not adopt the attitude that we do not want to bother the people because we are afraid they will become angry with us. If we do so, we shall run into difficulties later. There are already ways under the Act of affording the department the opportunity to acquire information. For example, when people move into a new house, an obligation is already placed on the owner to ensure that the new occupants have furnished their change of address. I think that eventually we shall have to go further than this. We may have to say to local authorities and bodies such as Escom that as far as the provision of services are concerned, they should not provide water or electricity before the occupant of the house has shown them his identity document and shown that his change of address has been noted thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have progressed so far and I am pleased, too, that there is general acceptance of this legislation. I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the information furnished to the House by the hon. Chief Whip on that side of the House, the member for Parow. Apart from the fact that he was the chairman of the Select Committee concerned, and certainly did good work in that capacity, we also know from experience and from our years of acquaintance that he is an expert in the fields of elections and everything connected with them.

It is interesting that it was only yesterday that hon. members in these benches praised the good work that can be done by Select Committees. It is therefore a pleasure to be able to say today that we have here another task completed due to the sound and sober work done by a Select Committee.

This Bill relates to a matter which intimately concerns us as members of the House of Assembly. I find it quite remarkable that the House is not full at the moment because after all, in a sense, all of us are here due to the machinery being established by this legislation. We all have some knowledge of the Bill before the House today.

We are concerned here with an extremely interesting process, a process which I choose to describe as a process of modernization, a process which, as the hon. member for Parow rightly said, entails tremendous advantages for South Africa. Apart from the cost factor, apart from the millions or thousands of rands that can be saved, it is true that those of us who are perhaps closer to the election battle than others, and are therefore aware of the work which our organizational machinery has to perform at election times, and even at times of political peace, are only too pleased that things can be done on this scale which ease the burden on those people.

The secret of the whole system, as far as I could make out, is based on two factors: Firstly the identity documents, and secondly the changes of address—which are intimately bound up with the first factor. The efficiency of this whole system will be seriously affected unless we succeed in making our population, our electorate, aware of the necessity of possessing identity documents and of the fact that when people change their address, they must inform the State. Of course, the question is how all this is to be done. How can the people be motivated to take this step? The immediate advantages of the identity document are not so obvious to the holder. How, therefore, can the people be motivated to co-operate? Let me say that I am satisfied and pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister has appealed to the people in this connection.

However, I do not think that this is enough. As far as those two factors are concerned, we can only succeed if we make use of the modem machinery utilized under this specific Bill in other spheres as well, in order to motivate the people. What I have in mind is the radio. Every day, people are told two or three times that it will rain the next day, or that the sun will be shining. However, I have never heard them tell the people: “Old friend, have you changed your address?” This is just as necessary. I watch television every day if I have the chance. We must make use of this medium to motivate the people to provide important information. Millions of rands will be saved as a result, because otherwise we shall only obtain this information with great difficulty.

Once the person has the book in his pocket and he realizes that merely by possessing the book he is not only benefiting himself but also the State machine, I believe that we shall perhaps manage to get people, not only to obtain the book …

Is yours in your pocket, Tony?

Unfortunately it is at home. I shall bring it along tomorrow. I am pleased that the matter has progressed so far and I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Parow when he states that it is perhaps a matter for rejoicing that we have come so far. I even foresee the day when we shall conduct an election, an election as we know it, not just 6 or 7 weeks after it has been announced, but perhaps a nice quick election, particularly when we are in power, within three weeks. I can see that we shall be able to fight an election, not on the voters’ rolls as we know them today, but perhaps without a voters’s roll. I shall then be able to enter a polling booth and produce my booklet, and because I am in the area indicated by my booklet, and because I have the booklet with me, the electoral officer will tell me that I can vote. I do not need a list to be able to determine this. This will be real progress to the advantage of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as it happens, the hon. member for Maitland and I have very similar Christian names and it is quite a pleasure for me to say that I agree with his ideas concerning propaganda on television to educate the voting public as regards their registration as voters and also as regards notification by them of changes of address. The basis of a fair, just and sound election and the outcome of that election—in other words, the expression of the wishes of the voters in the outcome of the election—is a sound, correct voters’ roll which is up to date. The proposals before the House, viz. that the old voters’ roll should lapse on 1 July next year and be replaced by a voters’ roll derived from the population register, is extremely important, in the sense that this will be a far closer approach to the ideal, in that the voters in a constituency involved in the election will in fact be voters living in the constituency. On the Witwatersrand large-scale movement of voters takes place. They move from one flat in one constituency into another flat in another constituency. Perhaps for reasons of their own, the change of address, particularly as regards the registration of voters, is not up to date. Now, it can very easily happen that voters in constituency A have moved to constituency B and that the voters that have moved, ensure that a certain candidate gets a majority in constituency A, viz. in a constituency in which they have no further interest. That is why I must associate myself with what the hon. member for Parow has said, viz. that logically, the eventual consequence of this amendment must be compulsory change of address: in other words, the onus will be placed on the voter to notify his change of address within a very short period after he has moved, so that the population register will have his new address and he will be entitled to vote in his new constituency.

There will be yet another important and favourable effect of this new system. I want to refer to an example in my own constituency. I had someone there who had filled in the RV. 1 form and had omitted to fill in her identity number because it so happened that it was not available or because the person who registered there was somewhat hasty. On a later occasion she again registered as a voter, and in this instance she furnished her identity number. Today her name appears twice on the voters’ roll, once with an identity number and once without. There are innumerable cases of this nature. She does not vote twice. Fortunately she is a Nat. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, due to the proposed amendment, duplication of registration will be totally eliminated. It is only to be welcomed that we are going to change over to the population register as the basis for a voters’ roll. As regards the amending of the period of the general registration, the lengthening of the period from 42 to 90 days, I can only say that this is to be welcomed, should it ever in fact be necessary to hold a general registration. Personally I agree with the hon. member for Parow when he states that he hopes that this will never become necessary again. I do not know whether there are hon. members in the House who have experienced general registration. I am of course referring now to the experience of going from door to door.

I just want to tell hon. members an interesting anecdote in connection with a general registration. At the time of the general registration of 1963, about 14 years ago, I had the privilege of being involved in the general registration in a constituency, the name of which I prefer not to mention. The hon. member who represents that constituency is sitting here at the moment. There was a group of voters that had to be registered, and the distances involved were great. I am amazed to hear that the cost of a general registration amounts to R2 million. This must amount to about R1 per voter. The remuneration paid to the part-time registration officer was about 7½ cents or 9 cents per voter at the time.

Hon. members ought to feel sorry for those registration officers—irrespective of whether they work on a part-time or full-time basis. There was a street called Highlands Road. Hon. members who come from there will know where it is. The houses on the south side of the street were higher than the houses on the north side. A friend and I were doing the registration and I decided—of course I thought I was cleverer than he—that he would have to walk up the steps to register the people on the other part, whereas I would attend to the people on the north side of the street. Mr. Speaker, to my horror, what did I discover? The houses on the north side of the street faced northwards. The side facing the street was therefore the back of the houses, the side where all the wolf-hounds were. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, you are lucky I am still here today. With all those wolfhounds I nearly did not make it. There have been cases when wolf-hounds and other dogs have bitten people. I have no objection to wolf-hounds as such; I have one myself. However, I mention this merely to illustrate that the new system that is envisaged will eliminate the enormous task of registration officers. Mr. Speaker, so much has already been said about this Bill. However, I want to add that I personally am also in favour of this Bill. In my opinion, the basis of a successful election is a good voters’ roll. I, who have had the experience of losing by three votes, can only say that if I had had a voters’ roll based on the population register, I should probably have won. I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be churlish to destroy the unanimity of the House on this measure and accordingly I shall not do that. The hon. member for Sea Point would normally have stood up on our behalf in regard to this Bill, having sat on that much-praised Select Committee, but as he is not here—he has certain matters which he would like to raise during the Committee Stage—I will deal briefly with a few points at the Second Reading. Mr. Speaker, we support the main thrust of this Bill, which is, as enunciated, to anticipate the change-over of the system of registration of voters from the present system, requiring people to complete R.V. 1 forms, to a system which is rapidly being introduced, that of the utilization of the identity document.

We also support the other main principle, which is the increase, from five to six years, of the periods in between general registrations and thus avoiding, hopefully forever, a general registration of voters. A general registration of voters would have had to take place this year had this legislation not come before us. The system of general registration will, once this Bill has been passed, not be as now; we will see the scrapping of voters’ rolls. Everybody will then come off the voters’ roll, and only those who apply within that general registration period will be included. It will now, in other words, mean merely a deleting and updating of existing rolls. In principle I believe that this is a far more efficient system than the one we presently endure, and we will therefore offer no objections.

It must be understood, however, that the PRP’s support for this Bill does not imply the support of my party for the race classification features of the Population Registration Act which are continued in this Bill and which are utilized in the electoral procedure. Nor does our support for this Bill imply that we support the exclusion of non-Whites from the Electoral Consolidation Act. However, this Bill does not touch on or affect those principles which were agreed to by this Parliament years ago and therefore they are not relevant to this debate.

There are just one or two minor matters I should like to mention. I do so now in order to allow the hon. the Minister to think them over until we come back to them in the Committee Stage. One is in regard to the appeal made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, which was supported from all sides of this House, relating to people ensuring that they are in possession of their identity documents by July of next year. I am sure that this is an appeal which we will all support. It is obviously in the interests of all parties to ensure that their friends, supporters, families and everybody concerned have this document and are thereby enabled to register their vote when necessary in any election which takes place. I assume that in the months which lie ahead the Government is going to give attention to the suggestions which have come from here, and has plans of its own to ensure that sufficient publicity is given to this matter throughout the country to see to it that the bulk of the population in South Africa is made aware of this final closing date in so far as the application of this Bill is concerned.

I would like to ask what is going to happen to those people who do not have their documents, through no fault of their own, by the date mentioned here, which is 1 July 1978. Will non-production of the document which they have not got, due perhaps to a delay, penalize them in regard to the provisions of this Bill? Will they be penalized if they are not able to produce such documents, for instance in a general registration which might take place? I wonder if the hon. the Minister will not give consideration, for his own convenience, to the possibility of not fixing the date in clause 8 as 1 July 1978, but rather saying “from a date to be promulgated”. The date will then probably still be the date which he has in the Bill at the present time, but without then having to amend it, the date could be changed if it became necessary to make such a change through unforeseen circumstances.

I think that there may also be a little bit of a problem over the working of the proposed new section 8(2)(b)(i), in line 26 on the first page. The wording reads as follows—

1. (b) The said list shall be prepared by inserting therein—

1. (i) the names of persons enrolled on the current voters’ list who are qualified for registration as voters in such division

“Who are qualified” are the operative words that I am talking about. On that present wording an electoral officer who removes any existing voter who may be qualified, or who does not remove any voter that is not qualified, is in fact, because of the very hard and objective wording, committing an irregularity. I wonder if it might not ease the job of the department if the wording were something like this—

1. (i) the names of persons enrolled on the current voters’ list who the electoral officer has satisfied himself are not disqualified.

This would in other words ensure that he would not be committing an irregularity if in fact he made an error. This is something which can be considered, and the hon. member for Sea Point will deal with it again in the Committee Stage.

I also foresee certain difficulties as regards the clarity of the meaning of the word “qualified”, as it is used in this Bill. There is in fact no appropriate definition of the word “qualified” in relation to the procedure which is being implemented here. This could, I believe, lead to anomalies and problems. Again, Mr. Speaker, I raise the point merely to give notice to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we shall be dealing with the matter in greater detail at the Committee Stage.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question relating to the change-over in the registration period from 42 to 90 days in the case of a general registration, which we hope will not take place at all, but which well might. It is well known that in the metropolitan areas, and especially the built-up areas such as flatland, there is a 15% to 50% change of address rate per year. Anything from 3% to 10% of the people in a residential area can therefore become disqualified during a 90-day registration period. I should therefore like to know on what date it is envisaged that people moving in or out will be qualified or disqualified. And, Mr. Speaker, what about applications for registration which are completed prior to the commencement of the 90-day period but which are not yet on the voters’ roll via a supplementary list? Will these people have to be included? Will they be qualified or disqualified?

The hon. the Deputy Minister need not answer these questions in detail at this stage, but perhaps he could give some thought to them so that we can raise these matters again in more detail in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Sandton had served in the Select Committee investigating this matter, he would not have asked many of the questions he has put now. I just want to react to one aspect touched on by the hon. member. He put a question concerning a person who, for example, was unable to produce his documents in a general registration. The position is that from 1 July 1978, a general registration will not take place in the sense that officials of the department will have to visit every house. The identity documents will automatically serve as registration documents. If a person has a reference book or identity book which he has perhaps mislaid or does not have on him, then the registration nevertheless takes place because the information is obtainable from the computer at the head office in Pretoria. That is where the voters’ roll is compiled, from the information contained in the computer.

It can be asked why 1 July 1978 should be the closing date for the change-over, and whether this could not perhaps discriminate against people who, through no fault of their own, did not yet have a reference book by that time. In my opinion the situation is similar to that relating to driver’s licences. As we know, in the case of driver’s licences a certain date has been laid down when each person must have an identity document. If a person does not have it by that time he will have to do another test to determine his skill as a driver. In other words, there is an onus on every individual to obtain a reference book before a certain date. If a person does not discharge that onus, he must be penalized. In the case of a driver’s licence the person concerned has to undergo another test before he may drive a car, although he is not unqualified to drive. In the case of a voter, the position is that although he is not disenfranchised by not having his reference book by 1 July 1978, he is in fact temporarily disenfranchised until such time as he has done his duty and taken out that identity document. There is the advantage that the responsibility is placed on every individual to display a degree of discipline, which is in fact essential in any developed community.

The aim of the whole system of identity documents is to combine the endless duplication of a group of different registers in one register. I want to express the confidence that identity documents will be applicable for the purposes of all State departments at some future date, so that one need only notify one’s change of address at one central bureau, for example.

It is a privilege to be a voter and I want to express the confidence that people will recognize their responsibility and that they will take the necessary steps in this connection.

In the past, when an election was at hand, the political parties took the trouble to do door-to-door canvassing to allow people who had not yet been registered at the address in question at that stage, to be registered. They had the voters fill in the RV 1 voter’s registration form and send it to the Department of the Interior in the hope that the voter concerned would be registered at that address on election day. In future it will still be possible for political parties to play a role in this regard, but instead of them having to see to it that the RV 1 form is filled in, they will be able to inspect the person’s identity document to determine whether he is registered at the address where he lives. They can then get the voter to have the application form notifying his change of address sent in so that his change of address may be noted. However, we must realize that the capacity of the department in Pretoria is limited and that they cannot deal with all that work over a very short period, and this could involve many voters being registered elsewhere at addresses where they are no longer resident. This, in turn, may result in further difficulties in casting a vote. In my opinion, therefore, it is vital that people should in fact be aware that in a disciplined community, it is their responsibility to notify their change of address themselves without delay, within 14 days of the event.

The hon. member for Maitland referred to the good work done in this connection by a Select Committee, and he wanted to advance this as justification for his standpoint as regards Sunday film shows and the Select Committee aspect there. It is an old standing custom that when the Electoral Act is amended, it is for the most part a measure on which agreement has been reached. The parties have to be in basic agreement concerning the aspects of any amendment of the Electoral Act. That is why it is an old tradition that no changes to an Electoral Act may be effected unless the measure can be discussed by way of a Select Committee and an agreement reached between the parties concerning basic aspects of the amendment.

Only with the Official Opposition.

The legislation further provides that no so-called de novo registration of voters will take place. In other words, if a general registration were to have to take place again for some reason, voters already on a voters’ roll would remain on the list. Registrations always cause a problem, but the proposed method will also entail the voters’ roll not always being up to date. I stress once again how necessary it is that changes of address be notified through the initiative of each individual. In certain European countries in which similar identity document registers are in use, problems are experienced in that people do not necessarily comply in every respect with the obligation to register. There are countries in which such disregard of obligations is subject to penal measures and it is an open question whether we shall not simply be forced to introduce this kind of discipline at one stage or another in a disciplined community.

Perhaps it is necessary to stress that the information contained in the population register can only be used by the State and to a person’s advantage. A person need not, therefore, be afraid that if he notifies his change of address in the population register he will be notifying his creditors, whom he is in fact running away from, of his new address. The information in the population register is only used to a person’s benefit or for the purposes of the State, and in my opinion this is a reasonable measure. I can therefore only associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. the Minister that every person should do his duty in notifying his change of address timeously, in other words, within 14 days.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to express a word of appreciation to the hon. member for Parow, who acted as chairman of the Select Committee, particularly because he succeeded in causing the committee to reach unanimity on so many of the recommendations. One person of whom no mention has been made and whom I also want to thank, is one of the officials, Mr. Booyens, who investigated overseas systems with the chairman and myself and contributed a great deal towards making that investigation a valuable one. We did of course have a bit of trouble with the hon. member for Parow, but between us we kept him on the straight and narrow although it took a great deal of effort in places like Paris and Soho, of course! However, it was worth the effort because in the meantime we also had time to look at the systems adopted overseas. There the registration of voters is, of course, based to a greater extent on a decentralized system.

†There is a lot of advantage in that which can only be off-set by the system which we are now adopting if information is available. The value of a decentralized system is that voters’ rolls are compiled at the point at which the local knowledge exists, namely the local authority, the municipality, which knows where a person is because he has a light account, he has a water account, and he has State or public housing. In these and various other ways a local authority knows where a person lives. That is the advantage of decentralized registration. The only way in which that can be bettered is where that knowledge becomes available at a centre point at which the register and the rolls are to be compiled. I believe that appeals are not going to be enough to bring about the necessary change of address notification. The hon. the Minister is going to be forced, if this is to succeed, to bring into effect the compulsory provisions of the Act which will ensure that before a person can receive accommodation of any sort that person will have to have changed his address. [Interjections.] I would like to ask whether there is any intention of enforcing the section of the Act which provides that when any new accommodation is let the person must prove to the person letting it that he has notified his change of address. I believe that agreement has been reached with the Estate Agents’ Association in this regard. I do not know whether a similar agreement has been reached with the Property Owners’ Association, but they are the people most concerned. I ask the hon. the Minister whether consideration has been given to enforcing these provisions. Then we will in time find out whether this is going to be sufficient or whether we will have to go to other official sources, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Parow. I will perhaps not be quite as gentle as the hon. member for Green Point when dealing with the question of the delays occurring in applications for Books of Life. I came across such a case during the recess.

I enquired to find out why it had taken so long for a certain person to obtain his Book of Life. I was told that the applicant had not replied to questionnaires. I found out, however, that the applicant had provided the required birth certificate, which was not a South African one and had to be obtained from overseas, by registered post. He could provide me with the slip as proof. It was still denied that the document had ever been received and a second one was sent, also by registered post. Because I become a little angry when I am told stories which I do not believe, I instituted an official search through the post office concerned and established, through the post office, that both the letters containing the required information had been received and signed for by the department at the correct address. This sort of thing should not happen. It should not be necessary to have to go to the post office and fill in search forms to establish that the department received certain information. I have heard of various instances where it has taken four or five months for a Book of Life to be supplied.

[Inaudible.]

I shall supply the name. The name was Anderson, and I can give the address in my constituency. When I took the matter up I was told that there had been a query but that no reply had been received in connection with that query.

That is one in a million.

No, it is not one in a million. There are 100 000 files subject to queries at the moment. [Interjections.] It is no use hon. members making a noise. We are amending the law to make the right to vote dependent upon a Book of Life, and I am pointing out that it is essential that there should be no delay in issuing the Book of Life when application is made. I also made the point that we would have to introduce a measure of compulsion when it comes to notification of change of address. In passing I also want to suggest something else to the hon. the Minister. I wonder how many members in this House have their Book of Life on them at the moment? One … Two … I should like to see them! I count only four members. There are perhaps four hon. members who have their Book of Life on them. If one were to go amongst the general public, one would find an equally small or even smaller percentage because the Book of Life is too bulky and too clumsy to carry around in the normal way. I want to suggest that the old identity card be reintroduced as an insert in the Book of Life. It fits neatly into a wallet and can be carried round without cluttering up one’s pocket with additional weight. This could simply be used for identification purposes, and here I am thinking of elections as well. It could be carried on one’s person without any problems. The Book of Life, however, is too big and clumsy for people to carry and therefore they do not like it. Many of them therefore prefer to keep the old identity card because of its convenience and because it is easier to carry about. The hon. members can make all the noise they like. They know it is true because they themselves are not carrying the Book of Life at this moment. That is the test.

Do not be so serious about it. There are many people who agree with you.

Yes, I know, but hon. members rise up in arms when I make the statement. I think the hon. the Minister probably agrees with me, however.

I want to raise one other aspect which puzzles me. We are making provision for a general registration to be held in July 1978. However, I do not accept the argument that that is dependent on the issuing of the Book of Life, because what will then be the purpose of a general registration? There will not be a general registration in the old sense, because, if one does not have one’s Book of Life, one will not be able to register as a voter. A general registration will not be possible if all the people do not have the Book of Life. They simply will not be able to register if they do not have it. If, on the other hand, everyone has it, one simply has to press a button and all will automatically be registered. Therefore a general registration cannot follow the introduction of this measure making the possession of any identity document compulsory and accordingly the general registration provision really falls away, unless amending legislation is introduced early in 1978 to suspend the provision of clause 1 of this Bill. If clause 1 is passed and comes into effect in July 1978 and the majority of citizens entitled to vote do not possess the Book of Life, there is no point in going ahead with a general registration. In that case we shall really be providing for something that will never take place. If the population register has not reached a stage at which it can be used to compile the voters’ roll, which could then be done automatically, we will have to suspend the operation of clause I before July next year.

In that case the provisions contained in clause I will apply.

Sir, if clause I applies, people cannot register if they do not possess the Book of Life. What is the use of holding a general registration by making use of the R.V. 1 forms since if a person fills in an R.V. 1 but does not have the Book of Life, he will not qualify and therefore will not go onto the voters’ roll. What I am saying is that the introduction of the provision contained in clause 1 will make a general registration purposeless. Therefore the population register will have to be able to cope. Otherwise we will have to repeal the provision contained in clause 1.

You do not understand it, Vause!

I understand it much better than that hon. member. What he is unable to understand, is that if one does not have one’s Book of Life, one is unable to register. What, then, is the purpose of a general registration based on an R.V. 1?

[Inaudible.]

That is my point. We may have to introduce amending legislation next year to repeal that provision, although I trust that it will not be necessary.

There is a last point I should like to raise, and this is in connection with the question of a person who can be disenfranchised. The hon. member for Parow referred to this matter. No one can be taken off the voters’ roll unless he is registered elsewhere. That provision—this is the R.V.4.—will still apply and one will still be able to object to the registration of a voter in a particular constituency, and the electoral official will still have to transfer that person and take certain steps under the present Act. However, when a general registration is undertaken, people can be disenfranchised; they can, however, not be disenfranchised in the meantime because they have to be transferred if an objection is raised against their registration. The procedure will still be there in respect of objections against persons wrongly registered.

I want to conclude by expressing the hope that a Bill covering the other provisions of the report will be introduced in good time so that we shall have enough time to make a study of it and to discuss it within the parties—it is to be hoped that this will be before next year’s session. This matter is one in which many people take an interest and if such a Bill were to be introduced before next year’s session, it would be possible to discuss it with the various bodies.

I, of course, support this Bill. I only hope that the population register will be ready before the end of the year so that the voters’ roll may be drawn up accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation under discussion this afternoon, as well as the participation in the debate by various members, affords an indication of the importance of the work done by the Select Committees of this House. I referred to this in my introductory speech, and if one looks at the names of the members who served in the Select Committee, one appreciates afresh the experience which this House can draw on, both in drafting and debating this legislation.

Before I go further, I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he has yet applied for his identity document and whether he has received it.

Yes, I have it.

I ask this because the hon. member is still in possession of his old identity card.

It is far more handy. I use it often.

I am glad to reply to the questions put by hon. members in the course of the debate and I am grateful, too, for the consensus that prevails. I shall reply to the points touched on by the hon. members of the PRP for discussion during the Committee Stage, not now but in the course of that debate.

†The hon. member for Green Point asked me one or two specific questions. The one particular question was whether we would see to it that we would be in constant consultation with the secretary to assist him to be in a position to complete this particular task. I can give him the assurance that that is the position. It receives the absolute priority of the Minister, the department and the Government to see to it that this task will be completed, and the secretary and his staff are also geared to see to it that this will be done.

The hon. member also asked whether we should not think along the lines of an appeal from region to region to register. We have tried this method in the past. We have also tried it from constituency to constituency. It was not really a success. It will only be a success if all parties concerned put in a total effort in this respect—political parties together with the Government department concerned and all other interested parties. Then we will make a success of this legislation.

The hon. member has also asked whether it will be possible on 1 July 1978 to identify those persons who have not applied with the intention of notifying them that they have not applied. I do not think it will be necessary. If we all do our duty, there will be very few people left and I do not think it will be necessary for us to try to identify those people and to notify them that they must apply. It is their duty to do so, but if their names are on the population register, then they will also be on the voters’ roll at that stage.

*The hon. member for Green Point also referred to changes of address. I shall refer to the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Parow. In this regard I, too, want to thank the hon. member for Parow for his exceptionally valuable contribution. It is not difficult to see who the people are who have a lot of experience in these matters. The hon. member for Parow and other hon. members laid special emphasis on the whole issue of changes of address. The fact of the matter is that changes of address are of the greatest importance for the operation of this system. At the moment the Act provides that voters have to notify their change of address within 14 days and have it entered on the population register. Furthermore, the Act provides that the owner of a dwelling, a flat or other building which people move into, must notify the address of those people on their behalf within 30 days after such people have moved in there. Unfortunately this is not what happens today.

Is it enforced?

I shall come to that. The legal provisions are very clear. It is vital for the operation of this system that priority be given to changes of address. Members of the public must also realize that it is the voter’s responsibility in the first instance, in terms of legal provisions adopted by this House, to notify his change of address. It is not the primary responsibility of a political party or of any other body to notify a voter’s change of address on his behalf. Unfortunately, however, it will probably occur in practice that political parties and other bodies will have to provide assistance in order to make a success of this project. It is true that it will be possible to enforce this provision, and I am convinced that if the system is working properly, we shall reach a stage at which there will be very few people who will have to be compelled to give notice of a change of address. Arising out of what the hon. member for Parow said, I should also like to confirm—with reference, too, to what the hon. member for Klip River said— that the public must realize that their particulars in the population register are confidential. Particulars entered in the population register are not there for the use of other people. They are there solely for the use of the State, or for use by the voter himself in his own interest. Voters need not, therefore, be afraid that details relating to changes of address will be used to their detriment by other people outside the State, or by people who will not use it in the interests of the voters.

The hon. member for Maitland quite rightly remarked that we were engaged in a process of modernization. Indeed, in my opinion, what we are engaged in at present is an exceptionally positive process of modernization. The hon. member for Parow, the hon. member for Maitland and other hon. members have said that the Government will have to start thinking about doing more than merely making an appeal from this House to motivate people to notify their changes of address. They have argued that the Government will have to use other means. Mr. Speaker, this will in fact be done, but it will be done at the appropriate time. It will undoubtedly be essential to make use of television, the Press and other media at the appropriate time in order to bring home to the public that they must register in order to acquire an identity document so that registration and inclusion in the population register can be effected smoothly. In that event, by 1 July 1978 we shall already have been able to achieve a success. However, it is not the idea that the department should be swamped by thousands of applications during the last month or six weeks. In such a case it will be impossible to deal with all the applications in time. However, Mr. Speaker, the available media will certainly be made use of at the appropriate time.

I have already intimated to the hon. member for Sandton that I shall react during the Committee Stage to the ideas he expressed. The hon. member for Germiston District also laid special emphasis on the fact that the onus must be on the voter. I agree with him whole-heartedly on that score. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to delays that occur.

†May I point out to the hon. member that the Department of the Interior receives an average of 8 000 letters a day. That gives one an idea of the volume of correspondence received per day. The hon. member has been through the department I take it that he has been through the whole machinery of the department as it operates today; so he knows and appreciates how many millions of files are being attended to in this department every year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is quite logical that delays will occur. We do not have to apologize for such delays. I am sure that, if one takes into consideration the volume of files involved, the number of delays that occur are comparatively negligible.

*Mr. Speaker, I myself have had the opportunity to go into this system in detail together with the Secretary. It really makes one feel proud to see how few delays in fact occur.

†Hon. members now refer to 100 000 files. Let me point out though that they do not all concern the voters’ roll. We have more or less that number of queries in the department, but they concern all the different sections of the department—not only the voters’ roll or the population register. What is, amongst others, the reason for those queries is that a man sends in his application form, but forgets to write down his address or forgets to give his birthday or second or third name. It so often happens, especially as far as the address is concerned, that a person forgets to let us know what his address is. If one takes into consideration the volume of work that we must cope with, it is not our task to try to trace that person and we therefore open a query file. It is up to him to get in touch with us again and if he does so we get the query file out and immediately attend to his application or query. I can give hon. members the assurance that the number of queries, seen in the total picture of the whole department, is quite a small percentage. As far as delays are concerned, it is our approach to see to it that there is as little as possible delay in all sections of the department. Hon. members can accept that assurance from me.

It might be just accidental that I meet them all!

Yes, that may be so, but the hon. member and other hon. members may take it that it is an absolute minimum if the vast volume of work that has to be dealt with by the limited staff is taken into account. Speaking in more general terms, I want to …

I know of people in the benches who have been waiting for five to six months already.

That is just accidental. I cannot reply to that any further. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sandton also asked whether it would be better not to refer to 1 July 1978, but rather to mention a date to be promulgated at a later stage. Our attitude is that it is in the interests of all concerned to have a specific date, namely 1 July 1978. This system must be a complete success by that date. Therefore we insist on keeping that date in order to force all the voters in South Africa and all the parties concerned to work towards that goal and make it a complete success by that date.

I think that I have replied in general to the particular points made by the members, except one point made by the hon. member for Durban Point.

*It concerns the provision relating to a general registration. He wants to know whether, if by 1 July 1978 we have not yet succeeded, we could not suspend this provision of the Bill. Technically the hon. member is probably correct, but at this stage it is our approach that we should prefer to aim for a successful outcome. If we should not succeed, then what the hon. member has in mind will probably have to be done, namely that the section will have to be suspended by way of legislation at a later stage.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the provision relating to compulsory change of address already applies to the house-owner or agent?

I am not fully prepared on this point, but if I remember correctly, the provision is already in operation and can therefore be enforced. However, this is a matter which is under consideration, and I cannot take it further at this stage, but I shall see to it that I shall be able to furnish the hon. member with further details in regard to this matter at the Committee Stage.

I think that I have now replied to the contributions made by the hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment proposed in clause 1 of the Bill now before the House, is to put the interpretation of section 84(1)(fA) of the Constitution beyond doubt. This provision of the Constitution is presently to the effect that the provincial administrations and municipal institutions may render assistance to another state or territory with the consent of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It so happens that in the case of local disasters, such as floods, one province may wish to assist a neighbouring province, or a municipality may wish to assist another municipality by providing roadmaking machinery, etc. Another example is where one municipality wishes to help by making its ambulances or fire fighting vehicles and equipment available to another municipality, in whose area some serious mishap has occurred. The State law advisers have explained that the relevant provision in its present form does not allow the rendering of assistance by one province to another, or by one municipality to another municipality. The word “territory” now appearing in section 84(1)(fA) of the Constitution must be interpreted to mean a territory under an authority which in its nature is the kind of authority exercised by a State. It is obvious that circumstances may arise where it is necessary for one province to assist another, or for one municipality to help another. It is for this reason that the said section 84(1 )(fA) is reworded as provided for in clause 1 of the Bill. It is proposed that the State President shall approve of the assistance instead of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as is now provided for in the said section. Because the scope of the section is extended, it is necessary to assign the authority to approve of the rendering of assistance to a central authority, to the State President. In accordance with normal procedure all interested State departments will be consulted before a request in terms of the section as amended is submitted to the State President for consideration.

It may be added that the proposed amendment is supported by all the provinces, that interested State departments have no objections thereto and that I believe that the Bill is not controversial.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that the objective which the hon. the Deputy Minister states he wishes to attain, is certainly not one in respect of which there can be any dispute or controversy, but I am quite frankly surprised at the method in which this is being done. The hon. the Deputy Minister said at the end of his speech that what he intended to do was to vest in some person or authority the right to approve of a municipality assisting another municipality in a different province or a province assisting another province, but that is not what the Bill before us says. The Bill deals with section 84 of the Constitution Act, and this section cloaks the provincial councils with certain powers to make ordinances with regard to matters within the specified subjects which are then detailed in the section. The Bill deals with one such power which was introduced into the Act in 1972. As the Act now stands, a provincial council may at present legislate by way of ordinance, relative to assistance by or to another State or another territory, and this is subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Any legislation which is passed by a provincial council is at the present time subject to the assent of the State President, because that is the only basis on which a provincial council can legislate, as the hon. the Minister will see when we refer to section 84(1) of the Constitution Act—

That is merely legislative. It is not the approval of a particular action of assistance which we are legislating for now. What is now happening, according to the clause of the Bill which is now before us, is that the power of legislation of a provincial council is being extended to include additional areas of government to which assistance may be given. The Act as it now stands provides for “Assistance to other State or territory”. To this is now added “province or the territory of South West Africa”. In other words, the power to legislate is extended to provide for assistance by a province or by an institution as defined, to another “State, territory, province or the territory of South West Africa”.

This assistance can be rendered to the territory or to another State at the present moment by the institutions which are defined as municipal institutions, divisional councils and other local institutions of a similar nature which are not public health bodies. We have no objection to the extension of this power; in fact, we welcome it. We welcomed the introduction of this sub-section in 1972. There are, however several questions about what we are now being asked to legislate for. First of all, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the Financial Relations Amendment Bill which is still to come before the House. In that Bill he defines “territory” as meaning, and I presume it means the same in this instance, “the territory under the control of one or other of the homelands’ legislative assemblies”. It is, however, not defined in the Bill before the House. That is one matter which, to my mind, should be defined in the Bill.

Another matter which also seems to be wrong, is the fact that we are confusing or putting into one basket arrangements or assistance between provinces within the Republic and arrangements or assistance which are inter-State, international, in their content. That is where the hon. the Minister and the Government experience their difficulty, because the clause is quite correct as it stands, namely that it is for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to regulate inter-State arrangements. The hon. the Minister is, however, getting himself into this position, with clause 1 of this Bill, where he says that the State President, which is the Government, must approve of the legislation; it can then be passed by the provincial councils and must then go back, in terms of the provisions of section 84 of the principal Act, for assent and approval of the State President. It seems to me that this matter has not been thought through, but that is what stands here. This approval by the State President can only mean “prior approval” in the wording we have here. The hon. the Deputy Minister is shaking his head, but he should read the provisions of section 84 of the principal Act. It states that all legislation is subject to the assent of the State President. Why then state in the subsection that one can legislate with the approval of the State President, unless it means that it must be prior approval? I think that is the problem which arises. I do not know why this provision is necessary. Queries have been raised as to why there should be inter-provincial assistance of this sort and what it contemplates. If this clause passes through the House as it stands at the moment, the position in regard to the territories of East Griqualand and their relation to Natal can be done purely by some arrangement between the two provinces, voluntarily or induced by pressure from the hon. the Minister of Finance, because, after all, no province can do anything unless the Government provides the funds on a subsidy basis.

It can then be arranged that the Province of Natal will administer East Griqualand without having any of the fuss and bother of having to change the boundaries of the Cape Province and of Natal. Similarly, in the case of administrative actions relating to the Cape, one could say to the Orange Free State: “You may administer the portion of the Cape Province which is north of the Orange River without the necessity of changing the boundaries of the province.” What is worrying me, and what I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, is what the reason is for the introduction of the province to province relationship here. Let me further point out to the hon. the Minister that this matter of the province to province relationship is very easily dealt with when one has regard to the provisions of section 84 of the Constitution Act and the special provision which entitles the State President to give certain further powers to the provinces to legislate. This is set out in section 84(1)(1) which reads—

1. (1) generally all matters which, in the opinion of the State President, are of a merely local or private nature in the province;

If one examines the Financial Relations Act, No. 65 of 1976, one will find listed therein the matters the control of which and the power to legislate in respect of which may be transferred by the State President to a province in terms of the Constitution Act. Inter-provincial assistance can very easily be dealt with by an amendment to Schedule 2 of the Financial Relations Act. We then remain in the position which we have at the moment, which I believe is the correct position, and that is that relations or any actions or agreements to act between a province and a foreign territory should be dealt with through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and should quite obviously have the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The matter is then dealt with by way of an ordinance which is eventually assented to be the State President. The method proposed in the Bill is accordingly not right, with respect to the hon. the Minister and his advisers. One cannot ask the person who has the power to assent or not to assent to legislation also beforehand to approve the legislation before it is introduced. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head but what else does the wording mean?

He is not approving legislation; he is approving assistance.

He approves assistance, but he approves it in such a way that it must then be legislated for and the legislation must then be approved by the same person who approved of the assistance. The two functions are quite different and you cannot vest them in the same person. I believe that the function of the State President in assenting or otherwise to an ordinance, is quite a different function and quite a different approach from the function of the person who approves that certain assistance may be given and may be legislated for. We on this side of the House are quite happy to say categorically that we accept the position as set out in paragraph (fA) as it stands at the present moment. We are quite prepared to assist in any way to have the territory of South West Africa also included, as I believe it should be, but we believe it is wrong to include the word “province” in this paragraph. We hoped it would be possible for us to move an amendment during the Committee Stage to remove the province to province relationship …

That is the accepted principle in the Act.

I am saying that we are prepared to accept the Act as it stands, namely that with the consent and the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs legislation can be enacted by the province to deal with inter-State and inter-territory assistance. We are quite agreeable to the addition of the second part of line 11, i.e. “the territory of South West Africa.” However, we believe it is wrong to include inter-provincial relationships when it comes to assistance in terms of this measure. For that reason we would have preferred to remove, by deletion, only the word “province” in line 11, and then the power could remain with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, though merely extended to the territory of South West Africa in so far as that has already been agreed upon and is already on the Statute Book. Unfortunately such an amendment, I understand, will not be accepted by the Secretary of the House because of the fact that this is a very short measure and because the aim is to extend the powers to include both those aspects. When it comes to the financial relations issue, we have the same problem. We believe that the question of provinces should not be raised in that Bill, but that problem can be dealt with in Committee Stage while this problem cannot.

This is only an improvement on the existing system.

I want to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are quite happy to improve the situation by extending the present provisions to include the territory of South West Africa, as he wishes to do, but we do not believe that it is an improvement to take inter-state or inter-territorial matters— i.e. negotiation between a province of the Republic and a foreign State, as provided for here—out of the proper portfolio which should control the matter, and that is the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For that reason we would like to see provision in this Republic of South Africa Constitution Act remaining as it is, with only the addition of “the territory of South West Africa”. As we cannot move that amendment, we unfortunately cannot support this measure at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the problem raised by the hon. member for Green Point seems to be that the hon. member cannot distinguish between, on the one hand, the powers of provincial councils to make ordinances in terms of section 84 of the Constitution Act and on the other hand, the approval by the central Government of a particular donation, as contemplated by this Bill. As I interpret the position, section 84 deals with the powers of provincial councils to make ordinances. The new section 84(fA) provides “with the approval of the State President”. In section 84(f), however, the reference is to “municipal institutions, divisional councils and other local institutions”.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the State President has to give his approval to all ordinances in any event, just as he has to approve legislation passed by this House. However, let us examine what has happened there. I am simply mentioning an example, and it is not necessarily the right one. Let us say that a local authority in the Free State felt at a certain stage that it wished to render assistance to the Government of Lesotho for a very deserving cause. However, it was felt that no authority existed under which this would be possible, and this was the reason for the insertion of section 84(fA). At the moment section 84(fA) reads as follows—

The problem now raised by the hon. member also applies in the existing Act in respect of what a province or a local authority wishes to donate to a foreign State. What the hon. member forgets, however, is the following. A province makes an ordinance in general terms, and here I am going to mention an example again. That ordinance may lay down that under specified circumstances, assistance will be rendered to foreign States. This is what this Government has provided for in section 84(fA). It wants the right to approve such a specific case, and rightly. One can understand this. The hon. member also mentioned this. In a specific case, although the province may have the power and the State President may have given his approval for the province to donate money in specified cases, and although the province may be acting in good faith, the Government may be aware, through its Department of Foreign Affairs, of circumstances or international implications which would cause the Government to be greatly embarrassed if such a donation were to be made. For this reason we are not concerned here with the approval of a province’s ordinance in general, but with the approval of every particular donation in terms of a specific ordinance already made under paragraph (fA). Because it must be inserted beyond all doubt that the province must have the same power to legislate with regard to assistance to other provinces and to pass legislation enabling local authorities within its area of jurisdiction also to render assistance to other local authorities within the same province or in another province, it has now been provided that this may take place in terms of the same provisions, but when this happens the Central Government will always reserve the right to exercise control over a particular donation. This is all that is contemplated by this amendment. Therefore the fact that the State President has to give his approval twice, as it were, is no factor here.

In the first case he gives his approval to an ordinance and in the second case he gives his approval to a particular donation. This is the way I interpret it, and I do not think that this amending Bill can be interpreted in any other way. If my interpretation of it is correct, I am afraid the argument of the hon. member falls away completely, because it has no substance in that case. Under those circumstances I believe that the hon. member may as well support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for Koedoespoort for having given such a lucid explanation of this matter. I now understand it much better than I did after the hon. the Deputy Minister had explained it to us.

You were probably not listening then.

On the contrary. I was listening very carefully. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Defence was not here at that stage, otherwise he would have agreed with me.

Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that the effect of this amending Bill is that any assistance rendered to anyone at all can only be rendered with the approval of the State President. In other words, the Bill provides that if a provincial council were to make an ordinance in order to render assistance to any other State, the wording of that ordinance would have to indicate that the province concerned may render assistance to the State concerned with the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or with the approval of the State President, as it now reads. Therefore the question of approval by the State President is only concerned with the rendering of assistance and this provision will be embodied in the ordinance. The wording of the ordinance will then be …

Not necessarily, but it may be.

Sir, I think that it will be the case. The State President will eventually approve the legislation, but that legislation will then have to provide that assistance of this kind may be rendered only with the approval of the State President. If this is not so, I do not understand the argument advanced by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. Then I still do not know why it is necessary for this change to be made to the legislation.

If this is already laid down in the Constitution, there is no need to repeat it in the ordinance.

But it is not repeated. It is repeated in the Bill.

†As I have said, if the hon. member for Koedoespoort is correct, then I believe that part of the objection to this Bill has been disposed of. However, there is one further objection. The hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing the Bill said that the Bill was to be enacted in order also to enable one municipality to give assistance to another municipality. I do not think that I can agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister on that interpretation because if one reads the long title of the Bill one sees that it states—

It is not a question of the rendering of assistance by the local authorities to other local authorities. I would be glad if this could also be arranged.

Read the first part of the clause.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to do this, it would be a very good thing if, for instance, ambulance services could be regulated under such a provision. We know what happens today. An ambulance service by a local authority is restricted to the jurisdiction of that local authority. It cannot proceed outside the jurisdiction of that local authority. As I understand the position, with the development of civil defence and also with the Administrators’ conferences that are taking place from time to time, new arrangements are in the offing by means of which this could be done. I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that what he has in mind is that before such assistance could be given, the matter should be referred to all State departments. Thus every State department must have a say in the matter as to whether municipality A may render assistance to municipality B in regard to ambulance services. That appears to me to be quite absurd. I do not think that is the object at all. I do believe that if the State President is introduced into this Bill merely for the purpose of regulating the assistance between one province and a municipality or a municipality and a province, there is no good purpose to be served by doing that. I believe therefore that the wording of this section should remain as it is. After all, if assistance is rendered by a municipality or a province to a foreign State, surely that is a matter for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is not a matter for the State President. One does not expect every Government department to go into the matter and that the State President must give his approval before assistance is given.

I cannot agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that this Bill is an improvement on the existing section, except that it now extends the provisions to the territory of South West Africa. In so far as the provinces are concerned, there is another matter which I think should be drawn to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and that is that provinces arrange matters between themselves and have been doing so for many years. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware—I think he is—that at least once every year there is an Administrators’ conference at which provincial matters are ironed out, as between provinces, and where joint action is worked out. I believe that this system works very well; it does not require an amendment of the Constitution Act for this to work. So I do believe that a provision that the State President must approve of assistance by one province to another is quite uncalled for and entirely unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support this Bill at Second Reading. I do appreciate the work that has been put in by the hon. member for Green Point, who always raises some very complicated and difficult points. Usually he is right, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] However, I am not certain that he is correct in his interpretation here. [Interjections.] Section 84 of the Constitution Act provides that provinces may make ordinances in relation to matters falling under different classes, among which subsection (fA) provides for—

In other words, a province may make an ordinance in regard to the general granting of assistance to another province or any other institution or territory, but it is still then required to obtain the permission of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, provided that assistance in fact involves the spending of money. The spending of money makes it incumbent upon several departments of State, and not only on the Department of Foreign Affairs, to take an interest. Therefore it is necessary that it goes through the State President, the Department of the Interior being the main department which has the say. I cannot see the objection to the Bill as raised by the hon. member. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised two points and said that now we have a cumbersome situation whereby an ordinance passed has to be assented to and that assistance may not be given prior to assent. He also said that there was a confusion in the wording. He may well have a point. It may be a slightly cumbersome way of putting it, but I feel that it is no reason whatsover to reject this Bill.

Finally, he raised the point that this will enable that piece of property known as Griqualand East to be administered by the Natal Province without changing the provincial boundaries. I think that is going somewhat from the sublime to the ridiculous. I do not believe that that is what is intended in this Bill. In fact, I do not believe that it is possible within the scope of this Bill. If, however, it is possible within the scope of this Bill, it is only possible if both provinces concerned agree and if the assent of the State President is obtained, in which case I do not know what any fuss would be about. We support this Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say I regret that I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I should be glad about this. In any case, I do not understand the argument of the hon. member for Green Point. We on these benches support the Bill. The matter seems fairly simple to me. In the first place we are concerned here with assistance, assistance which will somehow involve money. When it comes to money and I am asked who should approve the assistance, whether it should be the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the State President, it seems to me that the State President is the person who ought to approve such a donation.

In the second place, all ordinances have to be approved by the State President. There are no problems about this, after all. A province may make any ordinance which it is empowered to make in terms of section 84 of the Constitution. However, when an ordinance has been made, a specific obligation is imposed upon the province—this is done by way of the legislation under discussion— when performing the act it is authorized to perform in terms of the ordinance, to obtain the approval of the State President for that specific act. To me this seems to be quite in order. Two aspects are relevant here: the approval of the ordinance and the approval of the act. This seems to be quite clear to me, and consequently we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful towards the hon. members who support the Bill and especially towards the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who gave such a clear interpretation and explanation of the clause concerned. I must admit that I still do not understand the standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point.

†The hon. member for Green Point has some problem with the authorities of the State President now involved. However, it is quite clear that it is required of the provinces to have the State President’s consent for all their ordinances. An ordinance could have been passed the previous year in order to render assistance during the following year. For the rendering of assistance during a particular year it is, in terms of the Bill and in terms of the constitution, necessary to have the consent of the State President instead of the consent of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why, since it was sufficient in 1972 to have the consent of the Minister, it is now necessary to have the State President’s consent? Surely, this alters the whole principle involved?

The principle is not being altered. However, the Government law advisers advised us that it was in the interest of the State to put this provision very clearly in the Bill.

So an error was made in 1972.

All that is involved in this instance, is clearer legislation. As far as the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, I am very sorry that he either was not in the House or did not listen when I delivered my Second Reading speech.

I did listen.

Well, if that is so, then his attention must have wandered.

What about the municipalities?

I did give an example in so far as municipalities were concerned. I said—

I put it very clearly. I want to refer to yet another point that the hon. member made. As far as State departments are concerned, the hon. member is under the impression that before you ask the State President’s consent, you must consult, as the hon. member put it, all the Government departments.

That is what you said.

No, I did not say that. I said “all interested State departments” and that makes quite a difference. I think the hon. member missed the word “interested”. In the course of my introductory speech I said—

If that satisfies the hon. member, then I do not think I need reply any further.

The Bill has nothing to do with it.

The hon. member is a lawyer and I wish he would read the relevant section of the Constitution Act. Section 84(1 )(f) reads—

This section should be read in conjunction with clause 1 of the Bill in terms of which provision is made, inter alia, as follows—

May what?

It is not necessary to read the rest of the sentence. The point is that paragraph (f) should be read together with the proposed paragraph (fA). However, I do not think it is my duty to give a lecture to the hon. member for Wynberg— he should go back to university for that.

*I should like to confirm that the object of the legislation is only to set out the position in clearer legal terms. There is no doubt as to the intention and there is no doubt either about the procedure that is to be followed. Nor can there be any doubt about the fact that provision must be made for the State President to give this approval instead of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After all, we have a constitutional development taking place in South Africa. Financial arrangements between provinces and other bodies require the necessary consent to be given by someone like the State President and not by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 109 of the Constitution provides that, amongst other documents, all town-planning schemes shall be in both the official languages. Because of difficulties experienced at the time it was provided for in section 5(3) of the Provincial Affairs Act, 1972, that municipalities would have a period of grace of five years in which to complete the translation of all then existing town-planning schemes into the other official language. This period of grace of five years expires on 7 June 1977. It was further provided that on this date all town-planning schemes not yet translated would become invalid. The predicament municipalities would find themselves in, should some of their town-planning schemes become invalid, is easily appreciated.

Although progress has been made with the translation of the relevant town-planning schemes, circumstances arose which were not foreseen when municipalities were originally granted the said period of grace. The first circumstance is that in terms of the provincial legislation of Transvaal, amendments to a town-planning scheme may only be effected to the original town-planning scheme.

This means that until such time as replacement town-planning schemes in both official languages have been completed and published in the provincial gazette, all amendments must necessarily be based on the original town-planning scheme, which is only available in one of the official languages. If, therefore, the original unilingual town-planning schemes fall away on 7 June 1977, and have not been replaced by bilingual schemes, the intolerable position would be that all amendments effected to the said original schemes would, together with the original schemes, become invalid and lapse. Secondly, many of the existing town-planning schemes are, apart from not being available in both official languages, antiquated and date back to the ’forties or ’fifties. The local authorities concerned therefore make use of the opportunity to revise these old town-planning schemes, thereby adapting the schemes to present circumstances and new concepts in town-planning and development.

It is for this reason that the task of replacing the antiquated unilingual town-planning schemes is of such magnitude that after five years of grace they have as yet not all been translated into both the official languages. Thirdly, there are few local authorities who have their own townplanners. They are therefore dependent on the services of private town-planning consultants to assist them in drafting replacement schemes. These consultants are few in number and are, consequently, so overtaxed that they cannot possibly draw up all the required replacement schemes before the deadline date of 7 June 1977.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of these circumstances that it is proposed, in clause 1 of the Bill, that the replacement period of grace be extended from the present five to eight years. It may be added that the proposed amendment is supported by all the provinces and that interested State departments have no objection thereto.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Bill is not controversial.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct in his assumption that the Bill is not controversial. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us a detailed explanation and there is no need for me to elaborate on what he has said about the difficulties which are being experienced in finalizing the town-planning schemes. I wonder, however, whether even the three year period is going to be enough, especially if one knows what is going on in various of the towns and what is involved in these town-planning schemes. One can only wait and see how far they do get in fulfilling these provisions within the additional period of time that has been allowed to them.

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for Green Point for making a very good and short speech. I hope he continues in this way throughout the Interior legislation. Sir, we shall support the legislation which is before the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to give our support to the various Bills in a responsible manner. [Interjections.] However, I must admit that if one rises with such regularity to give a piece of legislation one’s blessing, one sometimes feels like the “tjep” of the town clerk of Oudtshoorn about whom Langenhoven wrote so jocularly. While I am talking about Langenhoven, I want to express my regret as a bilingual South African that the period of grace must be extended. We have cherished the hope of reaching a stage wherever everyone would have been sufficiently bilingual for the period of five years to have sufficed. Nevertheless, Sir, we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the assurance to the hon. member for Green Point that our information is that with this extension a sufficient period of time is being allowed in which all the necessary things can be done. I am convinced that that will be the position.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 16(1) of the Financial Relations Act presently provides generally that an executive committee of a province may establish and maintain schools outside its province, and especially that the Executive Committee of Transvaal may establish, maintain and control a school in, amongst other territories, the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel.

By clause 1 of the Bill it is proposed to replace the present section 16(1) of the Financial Relations Act by a new section in which provision is made for the exercise of any provincial function outside the borders of the relevant province, subject to the approval of the State President, and in the case of the exercise of such powers in another State, after agreement with the other State. Circumstances may arise that make it necessary for a province to exercise functions other than the establishment of schools, outside its borders, not only in the homelands when they become independent, but even further afield.

The fact that the exercise of provincial functions outside a province may only take place with the approval of the State President, ensures that there will be effective control.

The saving in clause 1 that any grant made and any school established, maintained and controlled outside the provinces before the replacement of the present section 16(1) of the Financial Relations Act by the new section 16(1), is necessary to legalize any grant and any school established outside a province before the coming into operation of clause 1.

It may be added that the proposed amendment is supported by all the provinces and that interested State departments have no objection thereto.

Sir, I believe that the Bill will not be controversial.

Mr. Speaker, this measure is related to the constitutional amendment which we have already dealt with and here again the matter is a procedural one, related to the method of utilization of funds and the utilization of those funds outside the province to which they have been allocated. In view of the decision of the House with regard to the necessity of the State President’s approval as far as interprovincial matters are concerned, I cannot believe that the House is going to take a different attitude in regard to this particular Bill and the necessity or otherwise of going to the State President. It would be inconsequential and not in keeping with reality for me to argue that the House, having adopted, at least at Second Reading, a Bill relating to the State President’s approval under the Constitution Act as far as ordinances are concerned, should not follow the same procedure in this instance. For that reason we will support this measure. I believe that it is correct, as we have already indicated, that there should be facilities and that there should be the right to assist outside of a province in cases of emergency and other worthwhile cases. It is an extension, as the hon. the Minister has already pointed out, of the position when we had schools in Mozambique and other neighbouring areas in earlier days. For that reason we will support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Green Point indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister, we will be supporting this Bill … [Interjections.] I do not know why hon. members on that side are so touchy immediately somebody on this side of the House starts to talk. That is when we get suspicious and we wonder whether we are right …

They just want rubber stamps.

I was about to say what the hon. member for Durban Point has just said, namely that it appears that all they want is a rubber stamp. They do not want anybody to get up and to ask about anything that is going on. What have they got to hide? What is there that is hidden in this Bill, this seemingly innocuous measure introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister? What is there that hon. members do not want me to find? What is it that they have there? This is the tremendous reaction that I get …

Order!

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it is perhaps that they love me so much? [Interjections.] The Bill makes provision for co-operation between provinces, for co-operation between a province and a territory in the Republic, which is today referred to as a Bantustan, and even for co-operation with a foreign State. There are certain negotiations and investigations which are under way at the moment, and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can answer some questions regarding the application of this Act once this provision has been approved and becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and hon. members of this House are aware of the fact that there was an investigation regarding the future of East Griqualand and that section of the Cape Province which has now become segregated from the rest of the Cape Province by the attainment of independence by the Transkei. It has been suggested that that section should be incorporated in the Province of Natal and that it should be excised from the Cape Province. We have not heard of the outcome of that investigation and we have not heard from the Government whether they have taken any decision on that matter. We have also not heard from either of the two provinces whether they have taken a final decision in regard to this matter. The question now arises as to whether, if it is decided not to incorporate East Griqualand into Natal, this provision which we are now considering could be used to allow the Natal Provincial Administration to administer East Griqualand, that section of the Cape Province. Similarly we have the situation in the north-eastern Cape where that section could by arrangement and with the consent of the two provincial administrations, be administered by the Administration of the Orange Free State. I believe that that could be one of the intentions behind this Bill. One of the intentions could also be to allow, for instance, the Natal Provincial Administration to help the KwaZulu Administration with the administration of roads and hospital services. It could also be used for the Transvaal Administration or even the Cape Administration to help Bophuthatswana, which is about to become independent, even after independence, in exactly the same way as the Cape Administration has helped the Transkei with schools in the past. This is all very well. There is the safeguard in this clause of the words “after agreement or arrangement with” the two parties concerned, in other words the two provinces. Under this Government, however, the provinces have lost an awful lot of their autonomy. They no longer have the powers which they had 20 years ago, or even 30 years ago. There could, for example, be difficulties, as with the East Griqualand situation. There could be difficulties in connection with the dissolution of divisional councils, difficulties regarding the Constitution Act with regard to the changing of provincial boundaries, and difficulties with regard to the Electoral Act, again with regard to the changing of provincial boundaries and the allocation of seats in provinces. With all those difficulties in mind, it could be decided by the Government that it would be a lot easier simply to persuade the Cape Administration to hand over the administration of East Griqualand to the Natal Administration. If this situation were to arise, and if the Natal Administration were to drag its heels because it was not all too keen on taking over the responsibility of looking after East Griqualand without the benefit of having those people as part of Natal for all other purposes, this Government, by means of the Financial Relations Act, would possibly be able to lean on the Natal Administration. They might be able to tell the Natal Administration: You need money; we hold the purse strings, so you had better dance to our tune. How often have we not heard it said by hon. Ministers on that side that he who pays the piper calls the tune?

Order! I think the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am trying to ask the hon. the Minister if my interpretation is correct, i.e. that this legislation can be used to have the Natal Provincial Administration administer a portion of the Cape Province. I believe that it is within the scope of the Bill. However, I shall abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member may continue. I shall listen carefully.

Thank you, Sir. On that basis I should like an explanation from the hon. the Minister. I want to know whether I am reading this Bill too widely, or is it, in fact, the intention of the Government to use this Bill for those purposes? As I say, there is the question of the north-eastern Cape and East Griqualand—those in particular— together with the Bantu homelands. Is it the intention of the Government to ask the administrations of the various provinces to perform those duties in those areas which are outside the areas of jurisdiction of the respective provinces?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister will apparently experience no problems in having this measure passed by the House but it will certainly serve a purpose, even if it is only for the record, if, to supplement what the hon. the Deputy Minister has already said, I sketch a little of the background which gave rise to this Bill. In connection with the point which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has just made, allow me to say at once that as I understand the Bill, it is certainly correct and in keeping with its intention that something similar to what the hon. member has advocated will, in fact, be possible. However, he is putting it rather broadly when he says … to administer portions of the territory”. As I understand it, this measure makes no provision for that. What is, in fact, possible, is that certain functions and duties which the Cape Province has at present, could, by way of an agreement, be taken over and executed by the province of Natal. This would certainly be possible.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has already indicated, provision exists at present only for the rendering of educational services by one province to another. Provision is being made in this Bill for considerable extensions to that principle. Contributing to this measure are the developments which have taken place in our country in recent times and, more specifically, the situation which has arisen with regard to independent Transkei. That is what originally gave rise to this measure. In the first place, the need arose for the continuation, when Transkei obtained its independence, of the rendering of educational services in particular, as the Cape Province had done previously. For that reason, the provinces and more specifically the Cape, originally asked the Government for an extension of this power so that it would apply not only from province to province but also between any province and an independent homeland.

It was also discovered that other situations could develop and that provision had to be made for these as well. It was found that it should not be limited to education alone but that provision should also be made for other services which the provinces render to Transkei and to other emergent states. It was found that the need could arise for the province concerned to continue rendering a certain service and to perform certain duties in this regard. Consequently, it was asked, and this was approved by the Government, that provision be made for such an omnibus measure, which actually covers a wide field and which makes provision for different situations. What this amounts to in brief is that this provision has been phrased in such wide terms that it can make provision for a whole range of situations. For example, at one stage a school had to be established in Toulon in France. If a similar situation were to arise again, it would be possible to meet that situation by means of this legislation. At one stage a considerable amount of assistance was rendered to Peru as well. After the earthquake which occurred in Lima in Peru, a considerable amount of assistance was rendered to that country in the medical field. It was in fact possible to render assistance, but this gave rise to a great deal of red tape and considerable administrative problems. The Financial Relations Amendment Bill will make it much easier now to render assistance of that kind.

Let us come back to the position in East Griqualand. Suppose that for certain reasons it would be advisable for the provinces of Natal and the Cape, or that these provinces were to feel that it would be convenient for certain services such as traffic control, for example, which are at present the responsibility of the Cape, to be rendered by Natal instead. It would then be possible to do so by way of this legislation. This also applies in the case where a state of emergency arises in one province and another province offers its assistance.

To summarize, I want to say that this provision has been phrased in such wide terms that it makes provision in the first place for the interprovincial execution of such duties and functions. As I have said, this may also be extended to independent homelands and to homelands which are still in the process of becoming independent. This may also be extended to other functions and duties, that is not education alone, in those States which are becoming independent. And ultimately it may also be extended to any other foreign State. This is a very useful measure and I am convinced that it will only be to the good of the Republic. It will bring about more effective functioning between the provinces and between us and other States, and for that reason the measure deserves the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but remark that we are making remarkably heavy weather of some very simple legislation. We are really unnecessarily extending debates over very simple matters. However, we shall support this Bill.

I want to react to the one point raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He said that the Government could lean on Natal if it did not toe the line in respect of administering, let us say, a portion of East Griqualand. The Government does not need this particular legislation if it wants to do that sort of thing. There are other provisions which enable it to do so. There is the question of subsidies which the Government gives to the provinces and which come into play. This legislation is merely enabling legislation; it presupposes agreement between the parties, the provinces concerned, and then the consent of the State President. I honestly think it is making very heavy weather of this legislation to suggest the sinister connotations which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has suggested. I conclude by reiterating that we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of these benches to support the Second Reading of this Bill. This is a Bill which makes provision for a province, with the approval of the State President, to perform a function outside the territory of its province and by arrangement or agreement in the territory of a foreign State, another province and the territory of South West Africa. These are very necessary functions that have to be performed by the provinces. We all know that education and services must be provided to the families of officials who are stationed in the distant areas, in the Caprivi and other territories. We realize that certain provinces are performing functions in other provinces and in the homelands. For instance, we are aware that the Cape Province is performing certain functions in the Transkei by agreement with that Government. We realize that these services and functions are necessary and are welcomed by the State, provinces and territories in which they are performed. However, Mr. Speaker, realizing the delicate situation in which South Africa finds itself today, and because we endeavour to be constructive from these benches, we are concerned about the wording in clause 1, lines 28, 29, 30 and 31, which read—

We are concerned about this wording because we believe it could be used by the enemies of the Republic and of the Republic of Transkei as an argument negating the independence of Transkei. Therefore I notify the hon. the Deputy Minister that I intend moving an amendment during the Committee Stage, an amendment which we in these benches believe will not change the provisions of the Bill at all, but will improve the wording in such a manner that no one will be able to use it adversely in relation to South Africa or Transkei. The effect of the amendment will be that the lines which I have already quoted to the House will then read—

We believe that this will be an improvement and that it will decidedly be in the interest of South Africa and of Transkei for this House to accept that amendment in the Committee Stage. Meanwhile we support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support given to this Bill by hon. members on the opposite side. I am especially grateful for the special contribution of the hon. member for Algoa, who drew on his own experience for his contribution.

†As far as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is concerned, I wish to refer him to the particular clause, which is actually only an extension of the existing legislation and which provides now that a province can perform “any” function, not only a particular function. On that premise I do not want to speculate with the hon. member as to what may happen between Natal and Griqualand East and/or between Natal and KwaZulu. I do not think it will be proper for me to speculate on that. Negotiations are still being carried on between the provinces and between the provinces and the State, and I would therefore like to leave the matter as it is at present.

Is that your intention?

No, I am not prepared to comment on that. That is for the Government to say at a later stage.

Why not?

One can speculate on that, Mr. Speaker, but I am not prepared to say officially what the position will be. The Government can say that at a later stage.

*As far as I am concerned, the legislation is very clear. As other hon. members, too, have rightly said, there are no problems with regard to this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is an administrative measure to provide for particulars of immunization against tuberculosis to be recorded in the population register and in identity documents. Sections 7(1 )(h) and 13(1)(f) of the Population Registration Act, 1950, provides that in respect of every person whose name is included in the population register, there shall be included in the said register and in his identity document, particulars of his compulsory immunization against poliomyelitis and smallpox. The same provision appears in section 2(2)(f) of the Identity Documents in South West Africa Act, 1970.

These particulars are included in the population register and in identity documents to assist the Department of Health in its control of the immunization of the population against the said diseases. Identity documents contain a certificate that must be completed by a medical practitioner or immunization officer on the date of the last immunization. Compulsory immunization against tuberculosis was introduced on September 28, 1973.

The Department of Health asked that the immunization against tuberculosis should, as in the case of poliomyelitis and smallpox, be recorded in the population register and in identity documents. This would assist the department in exercising control over immunization against tuberculosis.

The amendments to the relevant Acts proposed in the Bill are designed to give effect to the request by the Department of Health.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has deemed it necessary, in the interest of better administration, to bring certain information into identity documents. As he said, it is an administrative matter, and administratively, on behalf of the official Opposition, I want to say that we have no objection to this Bill. We therefore support it at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to say, in relation to this Bill, that we, the PRP, are absolutely opposed to population registration in the way in which it is administered in South Africa. However, this amendment does not affect the major principle of the Bill and we therefore will support the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to say that we in these benches also support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on the Bill was adjourned the hon. member for Aliwal had spoken about the complexity of the liquor legislation itself and I agree with him entirely that the Act is an extremely complex Act. I will deal with this aspect of the matter a little bit later, probably after the adjournment. I want to say at this stage that this, in fact, is one of the reasons why we are asking that this amending Bill be referred to a Select Committee, because it is such a complex one. Arising out of the complexity of the Act itself, naturally the amendments in the Bill are also complex. The hon. member for Potgietersrus asked the hon. the Minister to look at the question of quotas for bottle stores. This opens up the whole question of off-sale privileges relating to hotels. This is a very wide and complex subject. I believe that the very thought that was going through the mind of the hon. member for Potgietersrus in relation to quotas for bottle stores is a matter that should rather be dealt with in a Select Committee. It is this type of matter that we believe can be better discussed in a Select Committee than during the Second Reading of the Bill. For instance, we want to know what the hon. member for Potgietersrus’ views are in regard to quotas. We want to know whether he believes that the quotas should be increased or decreased and whether it is right or wrong that a hotel which receives star-rating should automatically be entitled to have an off-sale privilege. These sort of thoughts were not put to us across the floor of the House. All the hon. member asked the hon. the Minister to do was to give some consideration to the question of quotas. We believe that this is the sort of thing that should be discussed in depth and this can only be done when oral and other types of evidence is laid before a Select Committee. This is one of the reasons why we believe that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was discussing the question which was raised by the hon. member for Potgietersrus when he said that he felt that the hon. the Minister should look at the quotas for bottle-stores. I now want to come back to the hon. member for Aliwal, who I see unfortunately is not here. I want to remind the House of his speech in which he dealt so passionately with the question of open bars on election days. His main argument was to the effect that election days should be regarded as very special days. He went on to say that members on that side of the House regarded election days as being very special days; in other words, he related the day somehow or other to a Sunday or days similar in nature.

Oh, no!

Yes, he did.

Leave it to the UP to say that.

Is that so? The hon. the Minister made a very interesting statement when he said that the UP was the only one prepared to do that. I want to remind him, however, that if he had taken the trouble to look at the proceedings of the Select Committee which sat in 1973 to deal with this question whether bars should be open on election days or not, he would have found that a number of hon. members voted in favour of bars staying open on election days, i.e. the hon. members for Germiston District, Vryheid, Tygervallei and Parow. They voted in favour of an abolition of the prohibition of liquor on election days.

Where do you find that in official documents?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister where I found that in official documents. He has obviously been searching for it. I must admit that I searched for it and I happened to find it. He will find it on page 22 of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution and Elections Amendment Bill. It says that Mr. G. F. Botha, Mr. H. D. K. van der Merwe and Mr. A. C. van Wyk voted against it. He need only to lean over to the Chief Whip, whose name appears here, and ask him what happened.

Read your resolution.

I do not have to read it. The clause dealing with the abolition of the prohibition of liquor on election days was put and the Select Committee divided. The division is recorded here and the result was that the clause was negatived.

To take it out of the Electoral Act.

That is right. I just want to ask the hon. member for Aliwal a final question. He said that all the hon. members on his side believe that this was a special day. Therefore, who, apart from the hon. members for Parow, Tygervallei and the others whom I have mentioned, are the others who regard election days as being special days in these circumstances? This epitomizes exactly the reason why we are demanding that this matter be referred to a Select Committee, because obviously there is division even within the Government benches on a very basic issue such as this. It is a very fundamental issue. I also want to remind the hon. the Minister of what the hon. the Minister of the Interior said in that particular debate. He said—

That Select Committee, investigating election days, found that it was not necessary to close bars on election days. What, however, does the hon. the Minister do here? In his Second Reading speech he said that he had particularly investigated this matter and that he had found that it was not necessary to do away with this prohibition. Who is he to take unto himself the right to say that the situation should prevail? Is it not right that evidence should be taken in this issue? There is no accord amongst the Government members themselves. That is why we say that it is right that this Bill and the amendments which have been submitted here with regard to this particular clause, should be referred to a Select Committee and that evidence be taken about what the people feel about it as to whether it is in fact necessary.

I should like to pose one more question. The Bill states that hoteliers must close their bars and off-sales. I want to know what happens to Black South Africans who are allowed into White hotels, but are not taking part in the election? Why should they be prevented from being served liquor? What about the Coloured people who are allowed to do the same thing? This is the reason why we on this side of the House want to see the particular Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

When a similar Bill was introduced in 1976 the hon. the Minister said that was the last time the Bill would be amended before it was consolidated during the following year, i.e. this year. We were very pleased about that, because the Act dates back to 1928, and we have had this rather archaic Act for almost 50 years. We felt a sense of relief and those of us who dealt with the particular Act, the Liquor Act, appreciated that perhaps we would have some clarity from a new consolidated Bill. But before we could reach that stage, we had to have quite a substantial amendment to the Act itself. When we read through the Bill last year, we were disappointed because we felt that we should have some relief from the tremendous maze of regulations which have been amended from time to time, regulations connected with the Bill and through which the consumer himself, the producer of wine and liquor products, the courts and the legal practitioners have had the gravest difficulty in finding their way. We felt that although it had already been amended 35 times, we would find something really substantial the 36th time the Bill was being amended. We welcome consolidation, and I see the hon. the Minister has indicated in his Second Reading speech that it is proposed, hopefully, that if this Bill goes through, he will produce a consolidated Act next year. Meanwhile what has happened is that the amending Bill before the House is still in the rather archaic state in which legislation of this nature has always been. It is not keeping up with a changing society and, furthermore, we find that even some of the changes which are proposed, although in some measure a step forward, are retrograde in other ways. I shall deal with that a little later.

To say that the Bill of last year was a disappointment, is really an understatement and we hoped that subsequent to that, the hon. the Minister would be able to find some reason for bringing forward an improved amending Bill this year. There are dozens of ways in which this Bill can be improved in order to bring it into line with changing modern society. I believe that if we allow every hon. member of this House to give his free and untrammelled views as to how this Bill can be amended in order to improve the Liquor Act, it will take a tremendous amount of time. I do not believe that this House is the proper forum for a discussion of this nature, and that is why we have decided, after having considered the matter very earnestly, that it would be in the interest of our country if, at this stage, we appoint a Select Committee in order to discuss many of the matters which are contained in the Bill and which endeavour to give it a new look.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned that his department has had conversation with the KWV, the Wyn-instituut, Fedhasa, the Association of Law Societies and other bodies. I believe that what transpired during these consultations, was, in all likelihood, that although the proposed amendments to the Act were discussed by these bodies, there were, in point of fact, no representations submitted by or asked for from these bodies dealing about new ideas and new methods of control in relation to the dispensation of liquor. Consequently we have come to the conclusion that no real fundamental thinking has been applied to this Bill with a view to the consolidation of the legislation next year. One of the major factors about which we are concerned in order to modernize the Act, is the absence of any reference in the Act to the ideas of local authorities, particularly in relation to the issue of licences. We cannot understand why over the years local authorities have been ignored. On searching through the Act, one finds that on no occasion is the right to grant licences, or the actual fact of granting licences, to be referred to a local authority. Therefore the body which is most concerned with the issue of trading licences and which, by way of tradition, is responsible for the issue of trading licences, is not mentioned by the Act or this Bill at all as having any right or say as to the granting of licences. We find that overseas the opposite happens. There is delegation of powers overseas and in some cases, in fact, the local authorities are granted the absolute right in respect of the issue of licences. Having looked through the method of the control of liquor in the United States of America I want to mention the methods adopted by three States at random. There we find in the states of Alabama, Michigan and Illinois local authorities have either the sole right of granting or controlling liquor licences or are given veto rights. This is, I believe, one of the fundamental methods of thinking that we could examine and profitably explore in a Select Committee.

The idea of a Select Committee on this side of the House is not such a drastic step as it may seem. Firstly we are still fairly early in the session, with approximately four months left of the session. In my opinion, having sat on the Select Committee on the last Liquor Bill, the Bill which dealt with the question of the opening of hotels to other races, we found that we were able to come to a conclusion within a reasonable period of time. I estimate the time we took over that particular Select Committee to have been approximately three months. Secondly, it must be borne in mind that referring matters of such complexity as this—and I believe all the speakers that have spoken so far agree that it is a complex matter—to a Select Committee has become traditional by now. I believe it is right and that it is good government to do so. Those hon. members who have studied government in foreign countries will know that in the Federal Republic of Germany most of the legislation is controlled by means of Select Committees. This is also the case in the Knesset in Israel. Select Committees deal with Bills before they come before the House. That is the place where discussion takes place. I believe that we should also follow this practice in our proceedings in this House. Thirdly, I believe that the principles involved in this amending Bill are fairly far-reaching. I will deal with this aspect in more detail a bit later, but even without any fundamental changes proposed in the Bill there are the following factors to take into account. There is, first of all, a completely new system of centralization of control. We must discuss this in detail in a Select Committee. Then there is the appointment of an inspectorate of officials. Although the hon. the Minister has said that this may not be a new innovation, the fact that an inspectorate is going to be appointed is a new innovation, particularly in regard to the powers that are to be given to the inspectors in terms of the amending Bill. Then there is the retention of the clause dealing with the supply of liquor on election day, an aspect I dealt with earlier. There is also an apparent inability on the part of the hon. the Minister to deal with the subject of imposts, which he referred to in his Second Reading speech in 1976. I think all these aspects are of far-reaching consequence. By and large therefore, I think there is a strong case for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, and I have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting the hon. member for Durban Point in the motion he moved.

I now want to deal with certain detailed aspects of the Bill itself, but before I do that, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister, as I believe the hon. member for Sandton did, to the report of the department which was tabled last year in connection with shebeens. In the report the Secretary for Justice indicated that there was a very serious and dangerous situation arising in the Black townships in regard to the distribution of liquor. The hon. the Minister himself, in his reply during the Justice debate last year, indicated that he would take steps to see that something was done about this. He said he would take steps to inquire into the reasons for the operation of shebeens in the Black areas and try to ascertain the social circumstances which forced people in those areas to operate shebeens.

This Bill has a special shebeen clause—a 75-cent lunch.

In this Bill this problem is not truly dealt with at all, although it was in June 1976 that this urgent matter was raised as the prime consideration in the report of the department. However, in this Bill the hon. the Minister has apparently done absolutely nothing to remedy a situation which is growing worse and worse by the day. I believe this is also a matter which a Select Committee can investigate. It can ascertain, I believe by way of the normal functions of a Select Committee, what the underlying causes are and whether, as a temporary measure, this Bill can be amended—or a completely new Bill introduced—in such a way that the problem of the operation of shebeens can be properly dealt with.

I now want to raise a few questions regarding the Bill itself. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is envisaged that the old National Liquor Board, now to be called the Liquor Board, will meet every year in each province. I believe that in his speech last year, and in his speech this year, he gave the impression that there would be one meeting of the Liquor Board in each province. If this is so, I do not believe we have really solved any problems whatsoever. If the meeting was held in the Cape, in Cape Town for instance, any new applicant applying in Kokstad or even in Kuruman would have to come to Cape Town with all his witnesses and his legal representatives in order to appear before the board. I do not believe that this is correct. I believe there must be some provision made for the meetings of this board, if indeed it is going to operate in this fashion, in every centre where there is a new application, more particularly in view of the fact that local conditions—and local people will know what the local conditions are—are vital to the granting or refusal of a liquor licence. Furthermore, I believe that the centralization scheme involved in this Bill is not really going to speed up matters at all. In fact, I think that what is going to happen by centralizing the new application system is that it is going to slow it down. This is going to be a very vital factor in the question of liquor control because in point of fact the latest figures available show that in 1975 some 555 applications for new licences were submitted to the department while the department was only able to deal with 243 of them. I believe that, even though the far flung boards then operating in the whole of the Republic did the basic, fundamental work before matters were sent on to the National Liquor Board, the board was still unable to deal with such matters with any precision or speed at all.

I also want to refer to the proposed new section 13(2), as substituted by clause 12 of the Bill. Subsection (2) reads—

This was changed from the Bill that came before the House last year. If my memory serves me correctly, last year’s Bill provided that 14 days’ notice had to be given. This has been increased to 30 days’ notice. Let me just put this position to the hon. the Minister: An applicant living in a small rural town must, as soon as he receives notice of the meeting, make arrangements for all his witnesses, his legal adviser and himself to proceed to the centre where the meeting is to be held. He will only have 30 days’ notice in which to arrange this. Sir, sometimes it takes seven days before a letter reaches a small town. Therefore the applicant will only have 21 days in which to go to his legal adviser and arrange for him to be at the meeting on a given day. The legal adviser may turn around and say that he cannot possibly make it. I believe that this period is not sufficient, and I am serious about it.

What do you suggest? How many days’ notice must he have?

I believe that at least 2 months’ notice should be given. That would be reasonable. I believe that that would give people an opportunity to collect themselves together.

I believe we should also discuss the proposed new section 23(1 )(d) which appears on page 30 of the Bill. The proposed new section 23 deals with the disqualification of members of the Liquor Board. Let me just remind the hon. the Minister that three members of the Liquor Board are nominated by the State President. Unlike the rest of the members, they are not State officials. These three persons could be any people whatsoever. Provision is made here to disqualify a member of the board from taking a part in the discussions or decisions relating to the application for a liquor licence if he “has a direct financial interest in the business in respect of which the application is made”. I believe that that must be extended to include indirect interest in the business. The hon. the Minister will know that this is a normal provision in, I think, all of the provinces, where ordinances have been passed to the effect that councillors of municipal authorities, for instance, shall not be entitled to take part in any discussions in which they may have a direct or an indirect interest. In this regard I should like to draw the following analogy: if one of these gentlemen appointed by the State President happens to have, say, a mother who has an interest in an application that comes before the board, that gentleman, however much he tries to divorce his mind from his own parochial interests, will still not have a completely objective approach to the matter. If he were prevented from taking part by virtue of the insertion of indirect interest, then I believe that we would see that justice would be done and he himself would be quite happy to recuse himself from the decisions in that particular issue.

What is the indirect interest in his mother’s problem?

The indirect interest is where his mother is involved with a financial interest in the application itself, and in the case where his mother may well be dependent upon him. [Interjections.] I am drawing a picture for the hon. the Minister, because if I just put the plain facts to him he would not be able to understand them anyway. I have made it as simple as I possibly could.

I want to refer to the amendment to section 93 on page 122. This is the question of the prohibition by a magistrate of the sale or the supply of liquor to an individual. In terms of this clause the hon. the Minister is changing the requirements to the effect that if a person prejudices his own welfare then it is possible that he will be put on what they call the “black list”. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has ever examined the efficacy of this particular section. What happens, is that a person complains to a magistrate; the magistrate then calls the person against whom the complaint is made to his chambers, he examines him, he calls for evidence, etc. and then he issues an order. The order is to the effect that that poor unfortunate person should no longer be allowed to buy liquor. In other words, any person who sells or supplies liquor to that person, will be subject to penalties. My own experience, not personally, but through my practice, has been that this order is absolutely ineffective in preventing him from obtaining drink. It has got no effect whatsoever on the person concerned if he is genuinely a person who is wasting his money, wasting his assets and operating to the detriment of his own welfare, for then I believe that he is a sick man. That case is a matter for social welfare and not to be dealt with in terms of the Liquor Act itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London City, who has just sat down, actually made a plea for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. member subsequently dwelt upon three aspects of the legislation which, as the hon. member ought to know, should actually be discussed in the Committee Stage. What was interesting about the hon. member’s argument was the reasons which the hon. member put forward as to why the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. member began by saying that a Select Committee ought to decide whether liquor should be sold on an election day. This is the first aspect. This is an aspect which was also referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point as well as by the hon. member for Sandton, whom I do not see here at the moment. In the course of my speech, I want to go into this in detail.

The second aspect which the hon. member for East London City discussed was whether we should not consider giving greater powers to local authorities. In certain states of America and in certain other countries of the world, local authorities have control over this. This is a refrain that we have been hearing all along, during the discussion on the Prohibition of the Exhibition of Films on Sundays and Public Holidays Bill as well. One asks oneself why the Opposition is continually harping on the same old theme. Surely there can be only one reason. The reason is that the UP is at present still in control of a few tiny little city councils in South Africa. They know that through these, they would also be able to control the allocation of licences. Their whole argument is based on the fear that, when we come to the Government structure in South Africa—the keystone of the pyramid is, of course, the central Government—they know that they will never be able to control that keystone, this Parliament. In any event, they also know that they no longer have any say in three of the provinces. How long they will still be able to voice their opinions in Natal, we do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the third matter to which the hon. member referred was shebeens. I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to that but I just want to inform the hon. the Minister that if he refers this matter to a Select Committee, I should not like to serve on it, nor to buy liquor from a shebeen on top of that. Of course, the hon. member for East London City as well as the hon. member for Durban Point would be prepared to do this. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister whether the National Liquor Board, which will now become the Liquor Board, would meet annually in every province. I think that this is what the hon. member asked.

†Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member I want to quote from page 20 of the Bill. Clause 13(1) says—

It goes on to say that the board will meet in each and every province.

*Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the hon. member should have asked that question. If he would have us believe that he has read it, and he says that he understands both the Afrikaans and the English texts …

He does not understand what he has read!

Oh, then the hon. member did not understand it. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, in that case we can understand it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the Bill itself. This is a piece of legislation which demands a cool head if one is to find one’s way through the amendments of many years and through so many different provisions.

Just be sure not to have a drink before you start!

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Carletonville, who has alleged that only lawyers believe they can understand this Bill, that even they sometimes find it difficult, as far as the existing Liquor Act is concerned, to make sense of all its provisions.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that this Bill is before the House today and that it will anticipate the emergence of a consolidated Liquor Act. One sometimes feels concerned about all the legal measures which are taken in order to regulate and control the community. However, I do not believe that there is a single hon. member who believes that the liquor trade in South Africa ought not to be controlled. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture said at an international event recently that if there is a group of farmers in South Africa which is well organized, it is South Africa’s approximately 9 000 wine farmers. If it is true that there is such good organization on the part of the producer of this product, the product with which this legislation is concerned, it would be unfortunate if the hon. the Minister did not provide for a corresponding orderliness in the trade relating to this product and in its consumption.

Mr. Speaker, it is not very easy to satisfy a group of farmers. In the same way, it is not easy to satisfy the dealer and the consumer. In any event, when one is stuck with such a disintegrated and fragmented Opposition, one will never be able to satisfy them. To quote only one example of the problems which the hon. the Minister has to contend with, I want to refer to the fact that strong representations are being made that more shops and supermarkets and hypermarkets be permitted to sell wine and other spirits. In my opinion, those representations do have some merit. On the other hand, I recently received a circular from the Temperance Society, as did other hon. members, I suppose. In that circular, the society states that after an analysis of the situation in New Zealand, it was determined that excessive use of liquor had increased by approximately 15% after supermarkets had begun to sell liquor. Now one is not saying that the results of an investigation in another country can be applied to South Africa just like that, nor should I like to see this happen. I am simply mentioning it in an attempt to demonstrate the Solomonic wisdom which the hon. the Minister has to have when it comes to the weighing of interests, particularly when they are vested interests. You have to say yes to the one and no to the other and you have to know where to draw the line.

It reminds me of the father who had two sons. One of the sons was a wine-farmer and the other a brickmaker. He had the habit of calling on his two sons once a month to see how they were getting on. That particular month, he went to the elder son and said: “Jan, how are things here on the wine-farm?” His son answered: “Well, father, so far things are going well, but if we do not have any rain within 14 days, I am sunk.” The father drove a little further and came to his second son, Piet, and asked: “Piet, how are things in the brickmaking business?” Piet said: “Wonderful, Dad. There are half a million bricks in production, but if it rains within 14 days, I am sunk.” When the father arrived home, his wife asked him: “How are the children getting along, my dear?” He answered: “So far so good, my dear, but whether it rains or does not rain within the next 14 days, one of them has had it.” Mr. Speaker, this is what the hon. the Minister is faced with.

Now the hon, member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Sandton, who is not here at the moment, as well as the hon. member for East London City, all come along and want to know from the hon. the Minister of Justice why no liquor may be sold on an election day. Personally, I believe that the Select Committee which investigated the Electoral Act at that time was correct in its decision to delete that clause from the Electoral Act because, in my opinion, that provision does not belong in the Electoral Act. The provision has to do with the sale of liquor and for that reason it belongs in the Liquor Act. I really do not think that the hon. members for Durban Point, Sandton and East London City could have been quite serious in wanting to refer this bulky Bill to a Select Committee, and for the sake of three days in five years at that. Suppose we take it that there is an election for the White Parliament, the CRC and the Indian Council every five years. What do we find then? We find that bars will be closed and that liquor will not be supplied on only three days out of a total of 1 825 days. And it is for this reason that that hon. member wants to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

It is the principle that you regard the White voters as children. [Interjections.]

How, then, did the hon. member and the other two hon. members procure drinks in the past? Ought one not simply to do one’s shopping early again? What troubles us on this side of the House is the fact that it was not the consumers or commerce or the producers who complained, but only these three consumers. [Interjections.] Why should we refer this Bill to a Select Committee for the sake of three people?

May I ask you a question?

Now or on Saturday?

Now. May I ask the hon. member why, in that case, the Select Committee and this Parliament removed this particular provision from the Electoral Act because they considered it unnecessary? [Interjections.]

Let us re-examine for a moment the words of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who dealt with this matter. The hon. member-for East London City quoted a part of the hon. the Minister’s speech, only that part which suited his argument. However, let us take a further look at what the hon. the Minister said. The hon. the Minister said—and this is my reply to the hon. member—

Then the meaningful words—

However, it must surely be clear to a frontbencher of the Opposition that the opening was left for the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Liquor Act which still had to be amended. If it were to be amended, there would be a possibility of its being deleted.

There is much in this Bill which is commendable. Even though the hon. Opposition spokesmen only refer to its negative aspects, I believe that they too will agree that the provision in the Bill which stipulates that licences may now be renewed automatically and that data concerning the existing licences is now to be computerized, is a good one. In this way, we will save not only a lot of time, but money as well, because many administrative costs will fall away. Of course, licence holders, too, will now save on legal expenses, because normally they had engaged lawyers once a year to go and submit new applications. One can only hope that in the case of the commercial sector, this saving will be ploughed back into the industry so that the man in the street will also be able to derive a little benefit from it.

However, there is another improvement which I have noticed and on which I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the fact that the existing 56 local liquor licensing boards are to be done away with. I believe that this entails a very great improvement in all respects. We are continually complaining about a lack of trained manpower, but what do we do? We make quasi-judicial officials of our magistrates, who sit there and hear licence applications. I am not even talking about the magistrates who serve on the divisional councils. They are now being freed of this burden so that they can spend their time on the profession for which they were trained, namely administration of justice. These 57 bodies are being reduced to a single body. In this respect, the hon. the Minister who is handling this Act is setting an example well worth following, because South Africa certainly has more councils, committees and commissions than we can really afford. The fact that there is now going to be only one Liquor Board which will deal with the granting of new licences, and which has certain functions, must and will enable these people to specialize. They will be able to draw up a precedent system for themselves as they proceed from case to case. They will also be able to act according to their own stare decisis rule, because as time goes by, they will become completely specialized. We also believe that there will be greater objectivity in the consideration of new applications. Consequently, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Sandton, who stated in his speech that, in his opinion, there were a few problems attached to this Bill. I quote what the hon. member said about this Liquor Board (Hansard, 8 February 1977, col. 1042)—

Now the hon. member states that he does not want a single body but that he wants more local bodies. This hon. member, whose party is constantly bemoaning the fact that the Public Service has become too large, is now asking for still more bodies. While the hon. the Minister is trying to make the legislation more streamlined, to simplify matters and to appoint a single national body, the hon. member advocates still more bodies, still more Government officials and still more functions. That hon. member, together with the hon. member for Durban Point, complains that there are too many delays in the Public Service. The hon. member must keep in mind what he has said because hon. members on this side of the House are going to recall what he said when he hits out again at the creation of new bodies. I believe that the Liquor Board, which is being established as a single body, a board consisting of capable people with experience and knowledge, is a very great improvement on the old system. It is for this reason, and for the reasons already mentioned, that I gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East discussed the Bill in general terms and he probably does not expect me to react to his arguments this evening. I find no fault with the prohibition on sale of liquor on an election day and I shall deal with this more fully at a later stage. Nor did the hon. member make out any case against a Select Committee. Surely this debate is not meant to be a political debate, and if the Bill is to be approached in terms of political spectres during the Committee Stage, it will be a waste of the taxpayer’s time and money. I say this because we are dealing here with a Bill comprising 151 clauses and it is going to take us many hours to debate simple debating points that could very possibly be cleared up in another way. Some of the matters are, of course, much more complicated and should be discussed by a Select Committee. All the speakers demand the best possible legislation for the liquor industry. Everybody believes that there should be new legislation in this respect. The Opposition point of view can be divided into three parts, according to those of us on this side of the House. Firstly, we ask for the opportunity to study the legislation, to study it in more detail with the assistance of experts, because we want all hon. members in the House to have a better understanding of the Bill. Secondly, there are certain matters troubling us which could be cleared up after thorough discussion. Thirdly, we want a blueprint for the liquor industry placed on the Statute Book to enable us to do justice to this gigantic industry. All we ask, is the opportunity to make a greater contribution to this legislation and to the liquor industry. This can be done by way of a Select Committee.

But surely you opposed it.

Who opposed it?

But you said that you did not agree with it.

No, I have just furnished three reasons as to why we want a Select Committee. This is a very reasonable request and I hope the hon. the Minister will accede to it.

†One thing that constantly amazes me, is that in this industry the last of the great spenders are those whose budgets can least afford the over-consumption. We in these benches have decided to allow our members an opportunity of entering into the spirit of the Bill by allowing each member to let his hair down and to vote according to his own conscience. After discussing the matter very thoroughly—we are a party that caucuses very thoroughly—we decided that there was only one way out, viz. to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. We believe that this Bill, if amended, will serve as a blue-print for the liquor industry and all those thousands of people who are dependent on the liquor industry as such. Because of the importance of the Bill, we believe it should have the fullest possibility of investigation by a Select Committee. It goes without saying that some of the consumers could possibly be better off if their dependency on the industry was not so bent on over-consumption. I will try my best to be brief and not to be repetitive. A very good case has been made out for a Select Committee by many of the other speakers. I am absolutely convinced that if a Select Committee were appointed and the problems that we have mentioned could then be thrashed out, it could save a lot of unnecessary debate. At present, as far as this Act and this Bill are concerned, the hon. the Minister of Justice is the power-house of the liquor industry. I want to ask whether this is a good thing from the point of view of the hon. the Minister and from the point of view of the fact that we are dealing with private enterprise? Private enterprise generally would prefer not to be ruled by ministerial decree irrespective of who the Minister is, and that is nothing personal. The hon. the Minister has also acquired some very strange friends in this debate because I heard many hon. members argue that the hon. the Minister has too much work and that he should not accept the extra responsibility. All I can say to the hon. the Minister is: With friends like those, who needs enemies?

I would like to see the right of appeal not only on law but also on the merits of the case. The right of appeal could be to a court of law or to an independent body. It would take the pressure off a ministerial decision. I welcome the scrapping of the present system of the yearly renewal of licences, especially in these inflationary times. This will mean an enormous saving both in manpower, in professional fees and in all the red-tape that is attached to it.

It is obvious that this Bill must foreshadow the doing away with the liquor licensing boards. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some indication of the cost that we would be saving in scrapping these liquor licensing boards, because these costs must run into many hundreds of thousands of rand if one takes into account all the personnel and all the work that is attached to these liquor licensing boards. This in turn will mean that the National Liquor Board will assume far greater importance. I know that the hon. the Minister will have the final say, but in view of all the responsibilities that he has, I think that he should be happy to shed this one particular responsibility. I do not think that he should be so involved in the administration of this particular Act and this Bill when it becomes law. Surely the ideal situation would be if the hon. the Minister were to appoint, say, a retired judge or a senior magistrate as the chairman of the board. But for heaven’s sake, whichever retired judge he appoints, I hope that he will not appoint Mr. Kowie Marais!

Although I do not want to be a spoil-sport, I believe it is correct that liquor should not be sold on election days. Elections are heated enough without having to stroke the fires any further. I know that there is a fair amount of consumption of liquor on election days, but I feel that once one legalizes the selling of liquor, one is inviting far greater problems. Here I totally disagree with the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for East London City. With all the parties we have in Parliament and with all the splinters and the mergers which are on the go, the consumer will have a tough enough time making a correct and sound decision without the assistance of strong liquid refreshment.

I see that the Coloured Development Corporation is entitled to operate a company as a sole shareholder or together with Coloured persons and that it is entitled to apply for a licence. One obviously welcomes this but in this connection I would like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. Where the Coloured Development Corporation is a shareholder, whether it is a minority or a majority shareholder, and the business in which it holds shares has been established, we would like to see the Coloured Development Corporation sell those shares to Coloured persons. I do not think that it would be correct for the Coloured Development Corporation to hold those shares in perpetuity. I do not think that that would be the intention, but I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us about that.

The extension of the recovery of debt from three to four months is a great improvement. Quite candidly, I would like to see that period extended to six months. I believe that if the period were extended to six months, thousands of court cases would be obviated and one would save thousands of rand more than is the case at present. Certain clauses deal with the hotel industry—and this is the last point I should like to make—and the standards expected of that industry. The hotel industry and the tourist industry must, in my opinion, operate hand in glove to ensure that we receive a far greater share of the tourist gold than we do at present in South Africa.

Municipalities and local authorities should promote the hotel industry so that they can sell land to the hotel industry or to an individual hotelier for a nominal amount of say R1, provided the purchaser agrees to erect an hotel of a certain value within a specified period of time. If the purchaser fails to erect such a hotel in the specified period, he should be compelled to pay rates and taxes as though there was a building of the specified value on the particular piece of ground. In addition, the municipality should have the right to reclaim the land for the specified amount of R1 and also to claim damages if the hotel has not been built in the specified time. If this were done, it would give the hotel industry an enormous shot in the arm. Such penalties would cut out the speculator who merely buys the hotel land and then leaves it undeveloped. In certain cities large hotel groups have bought large tracts of land very cheaply. The land has been zoned for hotels, but hotels have never been built on that land. After years the purchasers try to get the land rezoned for other purposes. I feel it is essential for this matter to be examined so that the hotel industry in South Africa can be promoted. I hope I have said enough—I have tried not to say too much—to convince the hon. the Minister that a Select Committee is needed, and we on this side of the House appeal to him to appoint such a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, just like the hon. members of the UP, the hon. member for Walmer asked for this legislation to be referred to a Select Committee. Amongst other things he said that this would give the Select Committee the opportunity to call in the help of experts, to inquire into matters which are causing concern and to draw up a blueprint for a final and consolidated Liquor Act. I should just like to refer the hon. member to the Second Reading speech which the hon. the Minister made last session. He said that this Bill had been published in the Gazette in March 1976 after discussions had been held with the K.W.V., the Kaapse Wyninstituut, the Federated Hotel Associations, the Association of Law Societies and other bodies. Apart from possible minor points of difference, he added, the measure is also acceptable to the producers, to the trade in its various ramifications as well as to the attorneys’ profession insofar as its functions are concerned. In that case, what would be the purpose of referring a Bill of this nature, as it is before this House at present, to a Select Committee once again? Then we must also bear in mind the prospect of dealing with a consolidated measure next year, a measure which will definitely clear up and modernize all the aspects to which the hon. members of the Opposition referred.

But consolidation legislation cannot amend.

The idea will obviously be to make the entire matter more streamlined, if necessary. The hon. member for Durban Point, who is now making interjections here, said in his speech that this legislation contained a great conglomeration of measures and was very difficult to understand. But if he consults people who deal with this legislation from day to day and from week to week, he will realize and be impressed with how streamlined this legislation actually is and how well it has worked up to now. The only innovation here are the aspects which have already been referred to, the main one being a question of centralization with regard to first applications. The hon. member for Durban Point went on to say in 1976 that as far as his party is concerned, a free vote and a free discussion would be allowed.

It remains that way.

He says that it remains that way. I don’t know whether he actually said so in his speech, but I accept that it remains that way. I also accept that withdrawing the Whips in a debate of this nature is of great importance to the UP because then they as the UP party can be at their best because everyone can then speak to suit himself.

Is that meant to be funny?

I am particularly grateful that the dissatisfactory state of affairs concerning the renewal of liquor licences is being brought to an end by this legislation. This is something which I asked for as long ago as 1973 when I participated in my very first Justice debate in this House. I asked for an urgent revision in regard to requests for the renewal of licences in particular. We are coming nearer to that goal with this legislation. I also think it is fitting to pay the legal profession a compliment at this stage. It has already been said before that the legal profession was largely responsible for turning the handling of applications for liquor licences into a profitable task and that it was indeed very profitable. It is to their credit that they are now falling in with this amendment which provides that there will not be a renewal every year.

Furthermore I should like to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Durban Point to the effect that the hon. the Minister should actually be an appeal body and not the deciding body. Since 1928 the body which deals with liquor licences has been a body which actually exercises quasi-judicial functions. The Liquor Board which is now being established, is actually exercising quasi-judicial functions. Until the present time there has never been a right of appeal in regard to the merits of a case. There was only a right of appeal where the local council did not act in a bona fide manner or where there was such a degree of negligence that no one could have arrived at the decision which was taken. It so happens that the chairman at this stage is also a lawyer. It is obvious that this board will exercise its quasi-judicial functions as it did in the past.

Let us just look at what the precise functions of the Liquor Board are when it has applications before it. Firstly, it has to determine whether a quota exists for granting another licence. The second question upon which it must decide, is whether the evidence before it indicates that the applicant is a suitable person and that the premises are suitable premises. It must also decide whether the improvements which are to be made there are suitable for granting a liquor licence. It is actually a very simple task which the board has. Therefore we welcome it being centralized.

During the Second Reading debate in the 1976 session the hon. member for Durban Point spoke about nepotism which could possibly slip into this legislation. Fortunately he did not refer to this in his speech this time and I assume that, after having studied this legislation further, he accepts that there is no danger of this.

I just want to return to a few aspects of the Bill which deserve special mention. I have already mentioned that the applications for renewal are now being terminated, but I should like to talk about a second matter, namely the question of the certification of the constitution of a club. Previously it had to be the chairman who certified the constitution as a true copy and this resulted in many problems in the case of some renewals. After all it is obviously the secretary who is in possession of the document. Then, it was also mentioned during this debate, and I should like to emphasize it even more, that in the past, whereas an applicant had to adhere strictly to the requirements as laid down by the regulation, it is now no longer necessary for the application to agree substantially with the provisions laid down in the regulations. The tension created by this rigoristic application of the regulation caused many problems in the past, and I think that the amendment which is being made now, is a very welcome one.

I also think it is desirable for us to mention with appreciation at this stage the valuable services which have been rendered by liquor licencing boards up to now. Before the existing liquor licencing boards were established, there were of course the local licencing boards. We also have appreciation for their work. Until now the board has consisted of three chief magistrates from the districts which fell within the area of the licencing board. These magistrates were taken away from their normal duties only for the annual sitting of the board. Normally their usual functions are to act as chairmen in civil cases proceedings. They are taken away from their normal functions for periods varying from 7 to 30 days. This measure is going to remove some of the onerous duties which formed part of the heavy programmes of chief magistrates. In conclusion, I particularly want to welcome the proposed amendment in regard to clubs. We find that in clause 60, as far as clubs in the rural areas are concerned, the number of members will be decreased. I am referring to clause 60(3), which reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very welcome concession that is being made here in regard to clubs, in the rural areas in particular. In conclusion I want to say that I believe that this is definitely a Bill which could be discussed to better effect in the Committee Stage, but in so far as these measures simplify and centralize the procedure, the Bill is sincerely welcome. Nevertheless it will be a glad day for the liquor trade, for the legal profession and for the Departments concerned if it can be streamlined and consolidated as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Brakpan dealt with the Bill now before the House, he mentioned that the hon. member for Durban Point perhaps did not make it clear that this side of the House, the official Opposition, is entitled to a free vote on legislation of this nature. However, the attitude that I have towards this Bill is slightly different to that of the hon. member for Durban Point, but I do believe that the amendment which the hon. member has moved, is one that requires the very careful consideration of the hon. the Minister.

I believe that we are dealing with a Bill to further regulate the supply of liquor. We know that the whole question of the supply of liquor is one whereby the hon. the Minister has a responsibility whereby he must create a balance between the very great vested interests that are involved together with the welfare of the country and its people as a whole. We know that there are certain people who believe in prohibition, and, of course, prohibition is not a realistic proposition in South Africa. We must find ways and means for the control of strong liquor with the necessary balance between the vested interests and the welfare of the country as a whole. Mr. Speaker, it is on this basis that I have endeavoured to study this very lengthy Bill. It is against the background of having read the latest report of the Department of Justice which was tabled in this House some time ago, but I find it noteworthy that in this report it is indicated that a thorough investigation and an in-depth inquiry should be undertaken into the question of liquor. On page 6 of the said report it is stated that—

Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends instituting such an in-depth inquiry, because obviously the Bill which is now before the House can only be a step towards the ultimate consolidation which, I understand, is the intention of the hon. the Minister. However, before such consolidation takes place, it would surely be wise for the hon. the Minister to institute an in-depth inquiry into the whole question of the availability of liquor and the supply of liquor in South Africa as a whole. I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading, will give an indication as to his attitude in this regard. Obviously, the whole question of liquor is one which causes a great deal of concern when it comes to the combating of alcoholism and the abuse of liquor, and if one looks at figures that are being made available to this House from time to time, one can only be appalled at the tremendous increase in the number of convictions of persons driving under the influence of liquor, and indeed, by convictions for drunkenness which now total nearly 100 000 a year. That means that this whole problem has to be tackled, not only in regard to the question of the control of liquor as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, but in collaboration with the department that has to deal with the combating of this problem. I refer not only to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, which is saddled with the responsibility of having to combat alcoholism. If one looks at the figures relating to that department one will see that there has been a tremendous increase in the cost, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, of combating of alcoholism. This figure now exceeds R1½ million per year. Similarly, we know that the Department of Labour and employers have become increasingly alarmed at the increase of alcoholism amongst their staff and the adverse effect that it has on their productivity. Consequently, we have today various experts in the field who conduct symposiums and give lectures, not only from South Africa, but also from other parts of the world. For instance, there is a lecture to be held shortly by the Durban Chambers of Commerce when the director of labour managing services of the National Council on Alcoholism in the United States of America will address the Chamber at its next quarterly luncheon. Alcoholism is one of the aspects which is also causing a great deal of concern in other parts of the world. Therefore we wish to see in South Africa a situation where the degree of control is fair and just while, at the same time, not bringing about a situation where liquor is more easily available to certain persons.

Are you blaming liquor, or are there other reasons for that?

I am blaming the abuse of liquor. That is what I am dealing with.

You cannot blame liquor. [Interjections.]

I have never heard of alcoholism being caused by anything else but liquor. The hon. member for Worcester seems to indicate that alcoholism is not caused by the abuse of liquor. In that case I do not know what alcoholism is.

By ballet dancing! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point has suggested that perhaps the hon. member for Worcester is more an authority on ballet than he is on the abuse of liquor. I believe this is a serious social problem that is affecting this country, and consequently I am endeavouring to take a constructive view of this legislation so as to ascertain what its effect will be on the whole problem of alcoholism.

There are certain aspects in regard to the renewal of licences I want to raise. We know that in terms of the Bill there is to be a change as far as the granting of licences is concerned in terms of which it will no longer be necessary to have an annual renewal of licences as it is in terms of the existing position. The question of the cancellation of a licence is another matter which is covered by this Bill. I would particularly like to refer to objections which certain people have in regard to certain licences which are invariably of a local nature. Perhaps a licence is being applied for at a place which is near a club or an organization, like perhaps a scout movement or something of this nature. Certain people will have objections to a liquor licence being granted and they are fully entitled, in terms of the Bill, to present or put forward a case if they have objections. I think in particular of licencees who have in recent times tended to serve strong liquor to persons under the age of 18 years. Here again there is, in this legislation, reference to the question of the prohibition of liquor being served to those people under 18 years of age. Therefore I hope that those found persistently to be serving strong liquor to the youth of our country should have the attention of the hon. the Minister in order that their licences might be cancelled. I believe that provision is made with the specific object of protecting some young people who might not have the necessary discretion as far as strong liquor is concerned. In this way protection is provided for them. At the same time full cognizance must be taken of the case where a licensee persists in serving persons who are under the age of 18. I believe that is one of the reasons why alcoholism often develops into a serious problem. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will take this matter into consideration.

There is also the whole question of the local persons concerned, who are fully aware of the conditions which prevail in certain areas, being given every opportunity to put forward their case, so that they are able to bring various factors which might be involved to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The organizations which have taken a considerable interest in this matter are of course the churches. Many of them, through the various temperance unions and other unions, have voiced various opinions from time to time and have made representations to the hon. the Minister. I came across a document pertaining to the resolutions passed at a meeting of the council of the S.A. Temperance Alliance as far back as 1966, and I believe these still hold good today. Referring to local boards, it states—

This was a view expressed by an alliance representing a large number of denominations. We know from previous legislation that has been passed in the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice is prepared to listen to these pleas which come from various churches if they feel that their work is affected.

The whole matter of advertising as far as liquor is concerned is another matter which causes a great deal of concern. As far as commercial television—which we will have next year—is concerned, it is hoped that the hon. the Minister of Justice will use his influence to ensure that a responsible attitude is adopted with regard to the advertising of strong liquor. We have seen many misleading advertisements in which strong liquor is claimed to have all sorts of physical attributes, which are false attributes, when it comes to judging the health of the people concerned. In looking at the whole situation brought about by this Bill and to see whether the hon. the Minister has any further reasons for bringing about a situation which in some instances is making liquor more readily available, I particularly refer to clause 61 of the Bill, which deals with the days and hours of sale, supply and delivery. I quote from the new section 75(2)(a)—

1. (i) shall not sell, supply or deliver liquor earlier than seven o’clock in the morning or later than nine o’clock in the evening; …

The Bill aims to extend the hours from eight o’clock, as it previously was, to nine o’clock in the evening. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister the reason why it is necessary for the delivery hours to be extended from eight o’clock to nine o’clock in the evening. I feel that sufficient time is available for the persons who are distributing the liquor to do so prior to eight o’clock in the evening. I am unable to understand why the hon. the Minister wishes to have this extended by another hour. [Interjections.] Even in the case of Christmas and New Year, it would appear to me to require further explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why this is necessary.

I also want to deal with certain prohibitions that are provided for in terms of our legislation. We know that it is not always possible to create a situation where prohibition is practically applicable, but I do believe that it should remain with regard to election days. I believe that this matter should be left as it is. I see no reason at all why it is necessary for liquor to be available on election day. I support the hon. the Minister in this regard. Elections only take place every five years and the provincial and parliamentary elections take place simultaneously. It really only means one day every five years as far as both elections are concerned. I think this is important because I know of places that have been used as polling booths on election days which are in close proximity to licensed hotels and public bars. I do not think it would be wise to have such a polling booth in operation and at the same time have the bar and the licensed hotel continuing business, particularly when they are in close proximity to a polling booth. I believe the existing situation has worked in the past. There has been no difficulty and I cannot see why there should now be a demand by anyone for that to be changed, except by those who have vested interests, who perhaps believe that they can make more money on an election day.

The whole question dealing with the various aspects of the abuse of liquor, which I mentioned at the commencement, is one which has to be extremely closely examined by the hon. the Minister of Justice. If one considers the position as far as our children’s homes are concerned, one finds that there are some 10 000 children in 100 homes, as far as the White section of the population in South Africa is concerned. If one makes an analysis of the committal of those children, who have mainly been committed in the children’s courts as being in need of care, a large percentage of those children are found to be there as a result of the abuse of liquor by either one or both their parents. I believe this is a very real and difficult social problem. The hon. the Minister has an extremely difficult task to try to ensure that while the vested interests are given an opportunity, at the same time, the welfare, particularly of our young children, is fully taken account of in legislation of this nature. Therefore, I hope the hon. the Minister will take the advice of the Department of Justice for an in-depth inquiry into the whole question of the supply of liquor before introducing amending or consolidating legislation which would obviously incorporate some of the Bill which is now before the House. I hope the hon. the Minister will find ways and means of bringing about a situation which will, in some way, assist in solving the big problem of alcoholism that we have in South Africa today.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the hon. member for Umbilo is very much concerned about the abuse of liquor and that he holds strong personal views on the social and other problems caused by the abuse of liquor. I wish to assure the hon. member that there is certainly no one on this side of the House who condones the abuse of liquor. However, I cannot agree that the extension of the hours during which liquor may be sold must necessarily lead to an abuse of liquor. As a matter of fact, I can make out quite a good case to prove that it could also have the opposite effect. I have noted that the hon. member agrees with the hon. the Minister and with other hon. members on this side of the House on the matter of the opening of licensed premises on election days. This, of course, is the same attitude which the hon. member has adopted on previous occasions and, as a matter of fact, I expected him to state this point of view.

*However, I do not want to dwell on the argument put forward by the hon. member for Umbilo all night. I want to state that it is hardly possible to consider legislation in this hon. House which is more generally supported by all interested parties than the measure under discussion. It is true that this measure has the support of the department as well as the Federated Hotel Associations, the legal profession and the organized liquor trade. In view of the general support which this measure enjoys, it is hardly necessary to occupy the time of this House with a comprehensive elucidation of everything contained in this Bill, or with a motivation for and justification of the measure. At this late stage of the debate, comment on a few aspects of the Bill and on the reservations raised by the hon. member for Durban Point at the very beginning of the debate, as well as on a previous occasion, and by other members opposite, should suffice.

The hon. member for Durban Point—I regret that he is not present in this House at the moment, for I do not like discussing a person behind his back—does not seem to like general support for a measure, for he said that the very fact that this Bill had received general support, made him suspicious. One wonders whether this is the case because the hon. member for Durban Point has by now become so conditioned to the fact that his party simply cannot succeed in gaining the support of the voters that he is already at a stage where he regards general support for a measure as being undesirable. Be that as it may, there is nothing sinister at all in this Bill or in the general support which it has received. The fact of the matter is simply that the provisions of the Bill are generally regarded to be necessary as well as desirable, or else they are the inevitable consequence or results of different circumstances. In fact, the hon. member for Durban Point admitted this himself, and I am quoting him—

On the basis of the fact that the Bill contains 151 clauses, while the principal Act consists of 176 sections, the hon. member for Durban Point considers the Bill, as he put it, to be “virtually a rewrite of the Liquor Act”. However, the Bill does contain a number of important amendments, for example the centralization of liquor licensing, the abolition of local liquor licensing boards, the abolition of annual applications for the renewal of liquor licences, provision for the licensing of companies instead of nominees and so on. But it is also true that apart from these important amendments the Bill also contains a whole series of less important and consequential adjustments which do not effect any fundamental changes whatsoever to the existing Act. So there can be no question of a “rewrite” of the existing Liquor Act. This Bill is, however, an essential prelude to the actual “rewrite” of the Liquor Act which, as we heard from the hon. the Minister himself, will take place soon, when a consolidated Liquor Act will be drawn up which I, together with other hon. members of this House, will sincerely welcome.

The hon. member for Durban Point also reproached the hon. the Minister and accused him of empire building with this Bill, an allegation which is of course just so much nonsense. At a subsequent stage the hon. member went to the other absurd extreme by implying that the hon. the Minister, if this Bill were to be passed, would be nothing more than a rubber stamp. Surely the hon. member cannot be correct in both cases. The fact of the matter is that the implementation of the provisions of the Liquor Act has always in the final analysis been the responsibility and prerogative of the hon. the Minister of Justice—and will probably always be. At the same time the hon. member for Durban Point cast an absolutely unjustified and reprehensible reflection on officials of the department and members of the Liquor Board by suspecting them of nepotism. This kind of questioning of the integrity of officials and others, and the constant insistence on a so-called “judicial approach” is nothing but a characteristic expression of political frustration.

However, the hon. member for Durban Point was by no means consistent in his arguments either. On the one hand he alleged that, in terms of the present Bill, the total “‘baasskap’ over liquor and the liquor trade in South Africa has now been concentrated into the hands of the Liquor Board”. Later in his speech he alleged, however, that recommendations of liquor licensing boards and the Liquor Board had no effect and that in practice, under the existing Act, “the decision was taken at the centre in Pretoria”. If that is true, surely the hon. member’s argument that this Bill in fact concentrates “baasskap” over liquor and the liquor trade in South Africa into the hands of the Liquor Board, falls away completely. Then surely the Liquor Board already had full control over liquor and the liquor trade in South Africa.

The confusion of the hon. member is also apparent from his reaction to the elimination of the requirement to make annual applications for renewal of liquor licences. He said the following—

A few sentences later he said—

I do not think that this matter has anything to do with permanency, certainty or uncertainty, but with a more realistic and practical procedure to carry out the licensing of liquor premises. In the vast majority of cases the annual applications for renewal had become a mere formality, which merely entailed unnecessary costs and inconvenience, and could readily be abolished therefore. However, this does not mean to say that the conditions to which a liquor licence is subject will or should remain unchanged.

In respect of the objections to the granting of liquor licences, the hon. member for Durban Point alleged, and I am quoting him once again—

In this regard I want to content myself with the following three comments. Firstly: The right of objection to the granting of liquor licences is not being introduced by the present Bill. It has existed as long as the Liquor Act itself. In other words, there is no question of “opening doors” here. At most it can be said that doors which have been open all these years, are not being closed. Secondly: Objections cannot be restricted exclusively to new objections. The same objection which proved to be groundless on a previous occasion may on a subsequent occasion, owing to changed circumstances, appear to be quite sound. All objections must therefore be considered with discretion. Thirdly: How is it in any event possible to establish whether an objection is a new or an old objection without the objections first being received and considered? In this case, therefore, the hon. member for Durban Point wants to put the cart before the horse.

One last reference to the hon. member for Durban Point: He also reproached the hon. the Minister for the provisions of this Bill not having been made simpler. In this regard I do have sympathy for the hon. member, for it became very clearly apparent that the hon. member did not understand this Bill at all. In fact, he admitted it in so many words.

†Sir, I am prepared to bow to the hon. member’s superior knowledge regarding the subject matter of the Bill, but his knowledge of the provisions of the Bill certainly did not impress me.

*If the hon. member had only taken the trouble to look up the court records, he would have seen how many liquor cases had already been decided on technical points, which hinged on the wording of the statutory provisions. Consequently it is necessary that the intention of the legislature should be clearly expressed in the legislation and in such a way that it is not open to all kinds of interpretations.

Then, too, I want to refer for just a moment to some of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for East London City. He also argued that this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee because, as he said: “It is an extremely complex Act”. I make so bold as to say that there is nothing complex in the Liquor Act as such. The complexity lies therein that the Liquor Act has been amended time and again and that it is consequently necessary, when it comes to the interpretation of the Liquor Act, to work with a whole series of amendments. If the hon. member had said that it was high time the Liquor Act was consolidated, I would have been in complete agreement with him. In other words, the complexity lies in the fact that there are so many amendments which make it difficult to deal with the Liquor Act, but not in the Liquor Act per se. Therefore there is nothing which makes it necessary for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. What should in fact be done is that the Liquor Act as such ought to be consolidated by expert legal draftsmen—and we have already heard that this is going to be done. With all respect to hon. members of this House, and particularly after we have heard what arguments were advanced on the opposite side of this House, one asks oneself whether a Select Committee of this House would in fact be able to consolidate the Liquor Act meaningfully. I think the hon. member was simply trying to make political capital out of the problems which hon. members, particularly on his side of this House, have with this Bill. I think he tried to derive an argument from this to support his party’s amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

In my opinion the hon. member also displayed a very strange mode of arguments, particularly for a member of the legal profession. He took as his premise a statement made by the hon. member for Aliwal with regard to the closing of licensed premises on election days. Without further ado, without any evidence and without any logical cohesion, he equated it to provisions relating to the closing, or not, of liquor premises on Sundays. He then referred to the standpoints of hon. members in the Select Committee in an effort to support his argument. The hon. member for Aliwal referred to election days as if they had a special character. He never said that they were in any way equated with, or should be equated with, Sundays.

Just like Sundays.

The hon. member merely dragged in this argument in an effort to give substance to his argument.

The hon. member also said “that Parliament is not the proper forum for discussing the Bill”. If that were to be the case, I ask myself … [Interjections.] These were the hon. member’s words: “Parliament is not the proper forum for discussing the Bill.”

I did not say that. I said because of the …

Whatever your reason may be.

*The fact remains that we have been “discussing the Bill” for hours—and the hon. members of the Opposition are participating with gusto! But surely we are wasting time then!

I related it to what the hon. the Minister said as well. Do not try to change it.

I want to content myself with saying that besides doing away with the requirements that application for the renewal of liquor licences has to be made annually, to which I have already referred, I also welcome the provision which is being made in the Bill, to which other hon. members also referred, that technical errors or faults in applications for licences may be condoned. Clause 145 amends section 173 of the principal Act by authorizing the chairman of the Liquor Board when considering an application under the Liquor Act to condone “any error or omission of a formal or technical nature in such application or in any document accompanying it, if it or he is of the opinion that there has been substantial compliance with any relevant provision of this Act and that such condonation is not likely to cause prejudice to any person”. This will undoubtedly greatly alleviate the tension which in the past accompanied liquor licence applications. Other hon. members have also covered this field already, and therefore I shall let what I have said suffice.

In addition I believe that the amendments effected by this Bill to the Liquor Act have all been improvements. Therefore it is a pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Mossel Bay on having tried to debate by attempting to give a proper reply to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point as well as to that of the hon. member for East London City. I am not saying that he replied successfully, but the point is that it is good to see hon. members on the opposite side making an effort every now and again to debate instead of talking to us at cross purposes or touching on other stories. I think if hon. members on the opposite side could maintain the same standard of debate as we on this side do, it would be possible to make progress. I do not want to react any further to the hon. member’s speech, because in actual fact he only reacted to the speeches of the hon. members for Durban Point and East London City and did not say much himself. However, I want to focus our attention more on the Bill itself.

†I should first of all like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the staff of the Department of Justice for the tremendous amount of hard work that must have gone into this Bill. I am not a lawyer, but since I have come to Parliament I have learnt to respect lawyers a great deal and to have a great respect for the hard work which goes into Bills. I think it is also important for us to remember that this Bill controls a huge industry which last year generated in excise alone R309 million.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if one takes into account the tax paid by liquor companies and by wine farmers, I would imagine that the liquor industry produces as much revenue for the Government as the gold mining industry. And, if only for that reason, obviously the Government has an interest in controls on the liquor industry. Now, liquor is very much part of our culture. We know that Noah got drunk. We know all about Bacchus, and indeed, we know about the evening debates in this House! [Interjections.] In many ways liquor is very much part of our religion, and the very basic Christian service of Holy Communion, or “Nagmaal”, is associated with the consumption of liquor. It is fundamental to our whole society, and I do believe that a social anthropologist has said that every society in the world has three things in common: religion, marriage and an alcoholic beverage. For that reason, obviously, we are interested in the whole liquor phenomenon.

I believe the thing which troubles all of us in this House is not only the liquor issue, but the social aspect of liquor, and the hon. the Minister has himself previously, some two years ago, expressed a genuine concern about the abuse of liquor, as has the previous speaker in this debate, the hon. member for Mossel Bay. Mr. Speaker, I believe, however, that it is one thing to be concerned about abuse, and I want to quote here from Die Burger of 9 February 1977:

Dronk moles by skou kry nadraai—

That is in Worcester.

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

That is the important thing, Mr. Speaker—

*Mr. Speaker, we are laughing about this, but as I see it this is only a small aspect of a very big problem of our society. To proceed I want to quote from a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Justice, last year during the Third Reading debate of the Promotion of State Security Bill (Hansard, Vol. 62, col. 7018).

The hon. the Minister went on to say—

Here he was referring to the PRP.

The hon. the Minister continued—

Mr. Speaker …

Order! I think it would be a good idea for the hon. member to return from the national speech to the Liquor Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, all this has a bearing on this Bill.

†I find it curious that the hon. the Minister of Justice does not approach this Bill and the whole issue of the abuse of liquor in the same spirit in which he approached matters in the Third Reading of the Internal Security Commission Bill. We cannot deny that liquor is not simply a commercial commodity; it has a social effect in our society. I believe that one of the functions of good government is not to simply have “vryheid” or “losbandigheid”, but to have a “lewenskr: gtige vryheid”. [Interjections.]

That is exactly the type of legislation we are seeking. That is one of the reasons—I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban Point perhaps moved the amendment for this reason—why I certainly support the amendment that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee. I believe that the abuse of liquor should be controlled, in the first place for economic reasons. I do not want to bore the House, but we all get the magazine Robot. They had an edition, a year or so ago, on the effect of liquor on motor-car accidents. Anybody in this House can go along and spend 24 hours at the out-patients’ department of any major hospital to see this effect. I venture to suggest that in 60% to 80% of the cases which come into the casualty department, liquor is a major factor. We must realize that liquor, the abuse of liquor, is costing us millions and millions of rand.

The hon. member for Umbilo has mentioned the effect that liquor has on family life. How many of us have not had contact with childrens’ homes. I do not think there is a constituency in the country where we do not have to deal, as part of our function as MPs, with children who are committed by the court and most often liquor is a factor. If one talks to any minister of a congregation, one will find that liquor is one of the biggest social problems he has to deal with. I believe the hon. the Minister must not be frightened by the vested interest of Fedhasa or by the vested interest of the supporters of his party. He must realize that there is an abuse of liquor going on. Why can he not appear as “kragdadig”, as he wants to be? The hon. Minister does so in other matters; why not also in respect of this particular Bill?

I want to suggest that the Minister should seriously consider stopping protecting this industry from the abuses which flow from liquor. The liquor industry is perfectly free to sell the product. I do not believe anybody is standing for prohibition, and I do not want anybody to think that I support prohibition. However, what I do believe is that the hon. the Minister should enable people who want to point out the dangers of the abuse of liquor, to do so. I hope that when this matter is referred to a Select Committee, as I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree to do, he will consider allowing people who wish to point out the dangers of liquor, e.g. the Temperance Alliance, to have advertisements with even the outline of a bottle. I want to point out the extent to which the liquor industry goes in court cases. If the Temperance Alliance shows any advert pointing out the dangers of alcohol with the outline of a bottle on it, it is sued by the liquor industry. That is still not enough. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you follow the names of some of the kind of liquor that have been coming oùt. We have a new one now called “Happy Cow” which is described as a “wine aperitif”. Very recently there has been a very costly case between two major liquor companies because one company who sells a wine called “5th Avenue Cold Duck” objected to another company selling “Monte Carlo Baby Duck”. Mr. Justice Theron, in the reasons for his decision, said—

It was a dead duck.

That is right. The hon. member for Umlazi will know that the only difference in class between “Monte Carlo Baby Duck” and champagne is the kind of hangover you have in the end. The point is that the liquor industry has a strongly vested interest and it uses any means at its disposal to get its point across. This is an example of this, where these two liquor companies used thousands and thousands of rand just to fight a case because of a slight difference between a perlé and a champagne. I believe that through this Bill and by means of a Select Committee we have to seek some means of controlling this kind of abuse. In Norway, for example, liquor is freely available and everybody who wants to can drink it, but the advertising of liquor is prohibited. I believe that this is in the interests of the country, and I hope the South African Temperance Alliance is going to have a look at the Trade Practices Act if the hon. the Minister does not do something along those lines and take the matter to a Select Committee.

Although this is not perhaps strictly within the hon. the Minister’s responsibility, because he has to consult the hon. the Minister of Finance, I also believe that if he took 1% of the money which the hon. the Minister of Finance receives from excise on liquor and used that for public relations purposes to point out to the public the dangers of the abuse of liquor and the role it plays in road accidents, for example, he will have done a great deal to counter this advertising.

I do not want to deal with the details of the Bill, but I am concerned about the proposed new section 100bis. The hon. member for Innesdal has previously expressed his deep concern about this matter, and the riots in Soweto, I believe, expressed the deep concern of the Black community about the use of liquor to finance facilities for their people. It concerns me that the Bantu Administration Boards are now being given additional rights in terms of the proposed sections 13 and 100bis.

In last year’s debate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised the issue of shebeens and the need for Black people rather to be able to go to the shebeens to drink. I believe that this is important, and certainly in my constituency where I have a very large Black community, one finds that people tend to drink at shebeens.

People from a particular home area or perhaps a group of men who have the same interests or work in the same factory, will often fraternize or meet at some particular pub, just like we would tend to do. I think the shebeens are much better than these ghastly beer halls which have been burnt down in Soweto.

Do you know what they look like?

I have visited shebeens. I have never partaken of the wares they sell, but I know what they look like.

Do you support them?

I support the principle of licensing them and setting standards which they have to keep up.

It is good to see the improvements which have come about with regard to the blacklisting aspect.

There are a number of extensions in the Bill which I shall not go into, because I hope they will be discussed in the Select Committee, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister, who I believe is also concerned about it, because he said so, that we cannot go on pushing liquor down the throats of our population. I believe that this House would be evading its responsibilities if nothing were done about this, particularly since the hon. members of this House have a basic Christian view of life, even though they may not necessarily believe in the Christian faith. I believe we have a social responsibility towards our people. To make liquor constantly available and to sell it like green mealies on every street corner, I believe is wrong. Something ought to be done about the abuse of liquor. It is no use leaving it to organizations which are voluntary and which often struggle for funds. The liquor industry pours thousands and thousands of rands, it may even be millions, into advertising and into pushing the liquor trade. There was a programme about the liquor industry on television. It dealt with the effects of alcoholism. I know that the man who represented the liquor industry in that programme had hours and hours of television training before the liquor industry allowed him to appear on television. He simply had to make the right impression, in contrast to the other people who could not afford this kind of television training. I believe we have to realize that there are vested interests in the liquor industry which do not really care about the abuses which derive from it. As long as the tills are ringing and the money is flowing in, they are happy, because that is all they are interested in. I believe it is the hon. the Minister who has to appreciate that there has to be a control over liquor—that it is not merely a free enterprise industry, but that liquor has social effects on the community. We feel that it ought to be controlled, because we are a responsible Government and a responsible Parliament. I hope the hon. the Minister will support us, because there are many hon. members on that side of the House …

I agree with that.

I know the hon. the Minister agrees with it, but what is he going to do about it?

That you can read in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I support the proposal that this matter be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I prepared a speech on this subject, but first I feel bound to react to the very irresponsible speech by the hon. member for Pinetown.

Have you got vested interests?

I declare that I have no interest whatsoever in the liquor trade.

No shares either?

Nor do I have any shares in the liquor trade.

Any interests in ballet? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinetown concluded with the words that this was a responsible House. Therefore one would expect responsible speeches here. However, the hon. member said a few things which I cannot leave unanswered. In the first place he alleged that the Government is forcing liquor down people’s throats. This statement is devoid of all truth. Having just quoted a report on a drunken brawl from an Afrikaans newspaper, he quoted a speech on the Afrikaners which the hon. the Minister of Justice had made in a previous debate. I think that the hon. member implied that the so-called drunken brawl which took place at Worcester had been caused by Afrikaners.

That’s rubbish. You are talking nonsense.

That was what the hon. member insinuated. The hon. member also quoted to us a report from a certain newspaper on incidents which had allegedly occurred at Worcester. It is a pity that the hon. young member did not first come to me and ask whether it was true, because that entire report is devoid of all truth. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not be hurt. That report is devoid of all truth, except for the first paragraph in which the police are quoted correctly. The writer referred to the clergymen of Worcester, but according to my information he did not telephone a single clergyman in Worcester in connection with the matter. In fact, he was not even at the show that night. I do not want to go into this further but I just want to say that a strong delegation from Worcester went with me to the editor of that newspaper the day before yesterday. The editor will rectify the matter at a subsequent opportunity. However, what bothers me now is that the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Pinetown …

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

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member speaks 50 times a session, while I only speak only three or four times. He might as well sit down. What bothers me is that the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Pinetown are attacking alcohol as such in this debate. A product which 8 000 farmers of the Western Cape are producing with great care …

9 000!

The hon. the Minister says 9 000. These farmers are producing a product with great care, with a great deal of trouble and with great capital expenditure, a product of which they are proud. If these two hon. members want to discuss the abuse of the product with us, then I am with them. However, the hon. members attacked liquor as such without considering why people abuse alcohol. Why is alcohol abused? Alcohol is not abused because it is there; it is abused by people who either have a character defect or who approach a problem in an incorrect way and then want to try “to drown their sorrows in drink”, instead of trying to solve the problem in a civilized Christian way; not by resorting to other means. I can tell hon. members—and you will probably allow me to say this, Mr. Speaker—that the people who produce this liquor, the wine farmers, are people who have always fought hard against the abuse of their product. It may interest hon. members to know that these 9 000 farmers pay an annual levy amounting to nearly R800 000 to the KWV and that this levy is spent as follows. It may perhaps interest hon. members, and I am mentioning this just to indicate that those of us who are engaged in this the industry and who produce and have respect for our product, who love that product and are proud of it, also spend a great deal of money every year in order to help fight the abuse which we are opposed to. This R800 000 which is paid by the wine farmer every year by means of a levy is spent, inter alia, as follows: R100 000 is spent by the KWV every year for an information service concerning the proper, decent use of liquor; a further R100 000 is used for the production of a prestige publication Die Wynboer, a publication in which the civilized use of the product of the wine farmer is indicated.

A further R100 000 per year is spent on the education of our young people so that the idea that wine can be a potential danger if one uses it incorrectly, can be brought home to them. A further R100 000 is used annually for research on combating alcoholism and direct contributions are made to institutions like Ramot and others in order to help those people who have fallen by the wayside. Another R100 000 per year is used by the wine farmer, through his organization, to bring home to the wine farmer himself that he has received a cultural heritage which entails certain duties towards the consumer and that he must help to help that consumer to use the product in a civilized and correct manner. I think that the wine farmer has reason to be proud despises abuse of his product. However, I realize that due to inherent defects of character there are people who abuse this product. We then try to help those people with the funds which we give the KWV every year for them to use. [Interjections.]

Order!

What about the “dop” system?

There is no such thing as a “dop” system. The hon. the member is ignorant. The “dop” system disappeared from farming in the Boland a long time ago, but he simply does not know it. He can come and see what happens on my farm because I never give my labourers must or alcohol. There are thousands of farmers who do not do that. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

May I return to the legislation, because I do not think I need spend any more time on this matter.

For the sake of the hon. the Minister, I should also like to say something about estate wines. Many of us, even those who are critical of the product of the vine, like to visit our wine estates, those beautiful farms, and we proudly show them off to our friends, but that product, of which I, and I believe other hon. members too, am proud, is being criticized here tonight. It is a product of which I am proud, and I believe that other hon. members are too. Amongst other things, this legislation deals with control, abuse and monopolies. The legislation is important, because control and the prevention of abuse is absolutely essential. I do not want to discuss monopolies tonight. I shall perhaps do so at a later opportunity.

Allow me to say a few words about estate wines. I should like to make a suggestion and address a request to the hon. the Minister in this connection. The hon. the Minister has granted certain concessions in this legislation. The estate wine producers are people who have for years made a study of wine and wine production and who have spent a great deal of money on it, not only on the production of the wine, but also on establishing it. They are people who have been experimenting for years and have taken a great deal of trouble in order to put a unique wine on the market, a wine which is often characteristic of the farm, the situation of that farm, the climate and the types of soil.

A year or two ago we passed legislation in this Parliament in connection with the certification of the wines of origin, vintage year and cultivar. This is legislation which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for the precise purpose of developing the distinctiveness of estate wine farms. Estate wine producers are dependent on the wholesale trade for up to 97% of the marketing of their liquor. Two or three wholesalers buy 97% of the liquor produced in the Western Cape. Eventually, therefore, the estate wine producers began to bottle their own product. In order to market the wine under its own label, the estate wine farmer has to obtain a section 6(a) authorization. I think that this provision made a great impression upon the estate wine farmer because the Government showed sympathy here for the oldest established right to which the farmer, and the wine farmer too, can lay claim, namely the right to a continued existence. Therefore the estate wine farmer is grateful for the concession in clause 4(i). In terms of this clause he as producer is authorized to deliver his wine to the dealer.

What I am going to mention now, may seem a very small concession to an outsider, but it implies a great deal. I am sure that the new provisions of clause 5(b) will also earn the gratitude of the producer. This clause provides, inter alia, that wine should now be packed in smaller amounts. This will counteract smuggling, and since most estate wine falls into a higher price bracket, the ordinary man with good taste may also be able to buy these estate wines.

I should like to address a request to the hon. the Minister in connection with clause 5(c), and I am doing so on behalf of the estate wine producers. The estate wine producer does not have the right, when he receives an order from an individual, to deliver that order to the individual’s home. The delivery of small amounts of wine by the producer to the public can never be economical, but I believe that he should have the right to do so as a part of his service. If he wants to do so as a part of his good service to clients in exceptional cases, I think that he should have the right to do so. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not make such a concession to our estate wine producers.

Tonight I should also like to speak about the freer distribution of liquor, and with this I shall conclude my speech. However, before I do so, just one other point. Many of our people bring guests to visit estate wine farms. There are organizations which arrange tours and they bring groups of people to these farms in order to see the beautiful farm and taste its products. So it happens that 10, 20 or 30 people arrive there in a group. The owner, the farmer, has to be there to receive those people. Often he must offer up his time to take those people through his cellars. He must offer them cheese and biscuits. He must offer them all the types of wine he produces, so that they can taste them. He receives no compensation for this. I wonder whether it could not be arranged for the organizations which bring tourists to those farms to impose a small levy upon every tourist so that the representative of the organization will be able to say to the wine farmer after their visit:

“Sir, I brought 40 guests to your farm. Every one donated R1 towards your expenses. Here is a cheque for R40 for your trouble. ” It does not matter even if it is just a cheque for R20 or R10. The point is that the farmer has to offer free wine, cheese and biscuits and open his whole cellar to those people but he does not receive any compensation for it.

Cheese is very expensive these days.

Sir, it has been said that cheese is very expensive. But the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is going to make it cheaper for us!

In conclusion I should like to make a request here. Some years ago we had the Malan commission on the freer distribution of liquor. We are not asking for free distribution, but for a freer distribution of it. I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister would not, once more, look into the reason for the discrimination in the Western Cape against light wines, the unfortified wines, which may not also be sold in grocery shops. The Malan commission laid down certain rules in this connection, but in our own area where we produce a product, this discriminatory measure, if I may call it that, is still being applied against our own product. The South African wine industry is grateful for what the hon. the Minister has already done in order to bring about the freer distribution of light wines in our country. However, one cannot do everything by means of legislation. The free working of the market mechanism in the trade is just as important a contributing factor in respect of distribution aspects as availability, variety and fair prices are. I know that I cannot, tonight or tomorrow, expect the hon. the Minister to say: “Very well, I shall grant this concession.” The KWV is a very good friend of ours; he is a very good friend of the KWV and our wine farmers. I know that this matter has been put to him and that he will probably make certain concessions to us in this respect in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Worcester will make as eloquent a speech for the sugar industry when that is under discussion in this House—“cane for the pain”. I have no quarrel with him about the wine industry. I only hope he will extend his benevolent attitude to the cane growers when that subject is debated in the House.

Nobody here has spoken about the administration of the Liquor Act. I as a policeman who spent most of my adult life administering this Act, know what the pitfalls are and the dangers which befall every licensee and everybody who bought a bottle. Therefore I welcome the streamlining and simplification which is brought about by this Bill whereby the duties of the police will be simplified, as also the duties of the magistrate and even of the hon. the Minister, this lone-star Minister—actually, he has three stars tonight, but he is still the lone-star Minister. With this ever escalating legislation which is bulldozed through Parliament every year, the duties of the police, the magistrates and the Minister of Justice are growing more and more. The hon. member for Durban Point has pointed out that the Minister has thousands of duties to perform and in terms of the Liquor Act he even has more. Therefore I welcome this simplification that is going to come about. There was a certain measure of philosophy behind the Liquor Act of 1928, otherwise known as the Tielman Roos Act, and I presume that people was as hard drinkers then as they are today. I have had a cursory glance at this legislation and find that it has been amended no less than 28 times since it was enacted in 1928—49 years ago. In the ’30s there were three amending Acts. Those were the good old UP days; they did not waste time to amend Acts. In the ’40s it was amended in 1945 and then again as a war measure in 1946. That was still under the good old UP. But then came the plethora of Acts of this “kragdadige” Government. They were now going to show South Africa where we were going. The Act was amended six times in the 1950s, twice in 1956 alone. It was amended 11 times in the 1960s: twice in 1962, twice in 1965 and twice in 1969. The hon. the Minister can look at me in that fashion, but I have had a quick glance at the marginal notes here in the Bill. In the 1970s, up until 1975, the Act was amended six times. In other words, this Act has been amended no less than 28 times.

The hon. member for Worcester has said that there have been various commissions, and the whole point is that we still have not reached finality. What added to the complexity of many of the amending Bills was that certain sections of the Act were to have come into force on a date to be promulgated by the Minister or the State President, as the case may be. This resulted in the poor policemen—and after all, in those days the average policemen only had a Std. 6 education—not knowing where he stood. For instance, he found that the one section was amended while the other was not, because it still had to be promulgated. This alone, to my mind, is proof enough that it is time that this Bill was sent to a Select Committee. Before the hon. the Minister replies, I want to refresh his memory by referring him back to last year when we dealt with the Internal Security Bill, the “piscom” Bill—call it what you like— when we were told by persons no less than the hon. the Prime Minister and every other Nationalist on those benches that the legislators of this country knew more than the lawyers and all the academies put together. Parliament, they said was the supreme body. Therefore, I say, put it to a Select Committee, consisting of members of this supreme body, to find out how the Bill should be phrased. We will then make a good job of this.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay has little faith in his fellow legislators. He posed the question: “What do they know?” He said that the matter should be left to the legal advisers, but the legal advisers sit in their ivory towers and put out a lot of theory. They have never had to work with the Liquor Act in practice. They sit there and present us with only the theoretical part of it, while it is the policeman who has to spend days and nights—and I say “nights” because it is in fact so—sorting out the problems. The entire illicit liquor trade involves dealing with clever people and, by Jove, they are a lot of shysters with whom one has to match ones wits. All this takes time. Therefore, I say, let us send this matter to a Select Committee. We will serve on it. We will give the hon. the Minister the benefit of our knowledge and, make no mistake, we will come up with a decent Bill so that there will be no necessity for a consolidation Bill next year.