I move—

At the Conference of Administrators held in Cape Town in 1958 it was decided to appoint a committee to investigate and report on the training of personnel for auxiliary medical services or for the training of staff for paramedical professions and vocations, as it is called in this Bill. A committee consisting of eight members was then appointed, six of which represented the medical profession. They reported in April 1959, and their report was accepted by the Administrators. This committee, inter alia, recommended that paramedical personnel should be trained in special schools established with the object of serving the various provinces, and their intention was that these schools should be established by the provinces in co-operation with their respective hospital services, and that these schools which are to train this paramedical personnel should avoid duplication as far as possible. I mention this fact in order to indicate that the provinces only after very thorough investigation went so far as to approach this House for an extension of their powers, as is asked for in this Bill. The primary object of the establishment of these schools is the training of paramedical personnel for use in the provinces concerned but it will be unavoidable that this staff which is trained by the provinces will, due to the national shortage of such staff, also be used outside the province in which they are trained. They will be used by other provinces, other State Departments and also by private bodies outside those provinces. In addition, it is essential, in order to avoid duplication, that the training given in the various provinces should not all be the same. The desirable state of affairs in regard to the training of this paramedical personnel would be for one province to concentrate in one direction and for another province to specialize in a different direction. So, for example, the Transvaal has now asked, at the request of the S.A. Council for the Blind, that they should be allowed to start with the training of blind physiotherapists. It is easy to understand that, due to the shortage of blind therapists in this country, other provinces will also want to make use of those trained people, but in terms of the present legislation the position is that other provinces cannot make use of persons who will, e.g., be trained in the Transvaal, because the law provides at the moment that such trained persons must be used by a provincial hospital service in that province only. It is therefore being proposed in this Bill that the provinces should be clothed with the power to incur expenditure for the purposes of establishing such schools to train paramedical staff. That will be done in consultation with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance will decide on the type of courses which should be provided and where they should be provided. I may just mention that there will be further control. The Minister of Education will exercise further control over these training courses by virtue of the fact that he may fix the period of training in such courses. By granting the provinces this power a national need will really be complied with, because it will ensure there being no duplication or any unnecessary waste of the limited number of teachers. It is proposed that this Bill should be retrospective to 1 January this year. The only object here is to cover, by this retrospective effect of the Bill, any experimental schemes which may exist in any of the provinces and which are not yet covered in this way. We feel that this is an urgent and essential national service, and we do not want it to be delayed by any unnecessary difficulties. It is in the interests of the country for these services to be instituted as freely as possible.

On this side of the House we are prepared to support this Bill and to wish it all success. The hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down has dealt with the main provisions of the Bill.

I do not propose therefore to traverse them myself. Sir, he has dealt with the question of duplication of services to some extent. I want to say at once that so far as this side of the House is concerned we are very well aware of the difficulty we are having in finding adequate practitioners, not only trained medical and nursing personnel but the people who in the past used to be called members of the auxiliary services, the people who were associated with the medical profession and who in this Bill are called paramedical personnel. Sir, we are woefully short of such people also. While it is true that the Minister will be able to control any possible duplication of services I hope that he will view leniently and with a very sympathetic eye the extension of services for the training of what one might call semi-professional people. They are professional in a way—they undergo very severe training. They have to a very large extent the health and the happiness of people in their hands when they are working, as many of them do, in a physical capacity such as physiotherapists and others. They have the patients under their care and they have to be properly trained. I say we are woefully short of those people. It is right, of course, that the provinces ask for the extension of their powers. While that extension is granted in this particular Bill it is under the control of the Minister to a very great extent and we hope, as I have said, that he will view with great sympathy and understanding the dire shortage of such people in our society and do everything in his power to increase the output of trained people, i.e. trained in their special branch or calling of the medical profession, such as is contemplated in this Bill. We support the measure, Sir.

I rise to ask the hon. the Minister whether the provisions of this amending Bill will apply to the Coloured people of South Africa. There is nothing to indicate that the facilities which are offered here will also be offered to institutions which are now under the control of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs or institutions which may have or will in future be established. I should like to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister and draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to this, that the Coloured people too will be anxious to benefit from legislation such as we have before the House at the moment. I hope the hon. the Minister will, in legislation of this type, legislation which is very welcome indeed and a step forward, ensure that the Coloured people also get these facilities. I hope the two hon. Ministers who deal with the Coloured people of South Africa will try to extend all the facilities indicated in this Bill to such schools or institutions which are solely run by the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support granted to this measure by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I can give him the assurance that we are very keen to speed up this training. The only thing that was really lacking was this agreement which was arrived at only in July last year between the various Provincial Administrations and the Department of Education, Arts and Science. That agreement, which is now being put into effect, will certainly ensure the speedy action the hon. member desires.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that this Bill makes no distinction on the grounds of race or colour. The facilities created here will be for the benefit of every racial group in the country.

I move—

I would like to give the House a summary of the developments which led to the introduction of this Amendment Bill.

Mr. Herbert Ainsworth died in December 1920.

His will provides for certain pecuniary legacies and for the conversion of the whole of the residue of his property into money. The will further provides for that amount to be paid into trust and for the trustees to apply the capital amount of such sum and the interest derived therefrom, in assisting such men of British birth as they may think fit, to come to South Africa from the United Kingdom, to settle here as farmers or market gardeners. I wish to draw special attention to the provision that they should come from the United Kingdom. This is important for the purposes of the amendment and I shall deal with it in greater detail later.

The conditions stipulated in the will are that the advances may be used to cover passage costs, the purchase price of land or implements, or for any other purpose approved by the trustees. Advances at that time were limited to R300 to any one person, repayable over a period of not more than ten years, with interest at the rate of 4 per cent.

By 1934 the number of settlers who made use of this financial assistance had reached a low level and the trustees realized that to be of any use, the maximum amount per immigrant would have to be increased considerably. A private Bill was accordingly introduced and the amount was increased to R1,000 per person.

However, it soon became apparent that the amount of R1,000 was still not sufficient to induce settlers to make use of the scheme and in 1953 the number had dwindled to such an extent that the trustees again sponsored a private Bill and this time Parliament approved of the maximum amount being increased from R1,000 to R10,000 per settler.

The trustees have now made representations to the Government that since 1953 only 12 settlers have been assisted and at present only nine persons enjoy loans from the fund. Since its inception 187 settlers were granted loans from the fund.

In spite of extensive propaganda, advertising and other means of encouraging men of British birth to come to South Africa to settle here as farmers or market gardeners, applications for assistance received during the past ten years, as I have already mentioned, have been few and far between.

Can you tell us how many?

It is a negligible number. I do not believe it is half a dozen. The trustees are of the opinion that there are three reasons for this namely:

1. (a) Farming conditions in South Africa are so vastly different from those in the United Kingdom.
2. (b) The maximum amount of R10,000 which can be advanced is not sufficient under present-day conditions to establish a settler on the land unless he has considerable capital of his own.
3. (c) With the current pattern of interest rates, the rate at which interest must be charged in terms of the will, namely 4 per cent, is only a minor benefit to a settler, especially as there is a further stipulation that all loans must be repaid within a period of ten years.

Provision has accordingly been made in this Bill:

Firstly, for the maximum amount which can be lent to any one settler to be increased from R10,000 to R20,000.

Secondly, for the rate of interest to be reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent and:

Thirdly, for the period in which loans must be repaid, to be extended from ten to 15 years.

Hon. members may be interested to know that the initial amount which was paid over to the fund was R136,000 and that at 30 June 1963 the capital stood at R198,306. There has been a considerable increase. On that date the capital amount owing by settlers was R55,412.

Have there been any losses?

Not as far as I know.

I shall now deal with the other very important provision in this Bill, namely that the South African trustees shall have the power to assist any man of British birth as they may think fit to come to the Republic of South Africa and settle here as a farmer or a market gardener.

Earlier in this speech I drew attention to the original provision that assistance should be limited to persons who come to South Africa from the United Kingdom.

During the past few years the trustees have had numerous inquiries from persons of British birth who wish to come to South Africa from territories in Africa, especially from Kenya, the Rhodesias and other African countries.

As far as East Africa is concerned, particularly Kenya, the position is well known, but it may be as well that I should restate it here.

Farmers who were in comfortable financial circumstances in East Africa—some of them may have been well-off—find after they have migrated to the Republic that they have insufficient funds to continue as independent farmers.

They have to leave their countries of origin as a result of circumstances beyond their control. They are unable to realize the full value of their property. Usually they have to accept prices far below the actual value. They are not allowed to bring stock to the Republic and very often machinery and equipment go for a song or simply have to be abandoned because the cost of transport is prohibitive.

Generally speaking these people are very capable farmers. In many cases they are experienced in lines of farming such as sisal, coffee, tea and pyrethrum which are at present being developed in South Africa and may grow into new industries. On the other hand, these farmers usually have had no other training and if they cannot be set up as farmers their placement presents great difficulty. Our experience has been that there are very few vacancies in South Africa for farm managers and foremen.

May I also remind the House that whilst we do not recruit immigrants on the continent of Africa, those Whites who decide to come here of their own free will and are prepared to accept our way of life have been assured by the Government that they would be welcome. Selection on the grounds of occupation is consequently not as strict in their cases as in respect of immigrants from elsewhere. We are morally committed to assist these people.

The offer of the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Fund to increase the loans and to assist immigrants of British birth who come from countries in Africa is a most generous act for which we are grateful and I trust that the House will agree to the proposed amendments.

Will you tell us who the trustees are?

Yes. The trustees are of course changing from time to time. At the moment the trustees are Mr. Ramsay who is the manager of the South African General Investment Corporation, Mr. Ian MacKenzie and Mr. Donald Laing. They are well-known men in the financial world in Johannesburg and they are men of repute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I am grateful that you, Sir, allowed this Bill to be introduced as a public Bill, the reason, of course, as you stated in your ruling, being that it is in the public interest, and it was at the request of the trustees. For them to have to promote another private Bill will entail considerable expenditure and there is a measure of urgency in this measure because applications are now coming in at an increased tempo, and applicants have to be turned down from time to time.

I just want to reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). There have been bad debts. For the period 1953-63 the bad debts written off were R8,000.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. As I have said it should receive the support of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for the details he has given us. I personally want to thank him for the replies he has given me in regard to one or two points. The Bill will have the full support of this side of the House. My mind goes back to something like two years ago when this side of the House made a special plea for a sympathetic approach to the White settlers who were coming down to us from the north and those countries that were in difficulty. May I right at this stage—perhaps the hon. the Minister will deal with it when he replies—make the point that, as the Minister said just now, there were certain people to the north of us who have had to leave those countries for certain reasons beyond their control. Now, Sir, I suggest that all of them are not of British birth. This Bill only applies to people of British birth. I do not think those people who were born in the countries to the north of us can claim to be of British birth for the purposes of this particular Bill. A person born in Britain who has migrated to one of those countries and then come down here can claim to be of British birth, but I do not think the offspring of people from Britain, offspring that were born in the countries to the north of us, can claim to be persons of British birth for the purposes of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain that when he replies. Not that that would make any difference to our whole approach to this question, Sir. We have, if anything, only a regret that there is a limitation. There are so many good people, not only of British birth but of other European descent, who have had to leave the countries to our north. We are pleased that they feel that South Africa is a place in which they can find a new home, even late in their lives as it is for many of them. We should like to do everything that we can to make them feel that they have indeed come to a new home where they will find that which they have lost up in the north.

The details which the hon. the Minister has given us in regard to the amount of the loan are of great interest. I think we agree with the Minister that the amount which the trustees could advance in the past was probably on the low side. The loans are, of course, not available to anyone coming into the country and who is of British birth. The loans are only available to those who are farmers or market gardeners. Within the four corners of that definition, Sir, it is not clear what constitutes a farmer in South Africa today when you see all who call themselves farmers. But in terms of this Bill only a farmer or market gardener can get a loan from the Herbert Ainsworth Trust. There again it is perhaps a part of our economy which we would like to see strengthened. The testator decided that that was the limitation that he was going to impose in his will. So be it; there can be no complaint about that. We are not objecting to the purpose. I say it is a part of the economy of South Africa that we should like to see strengthened. We should like to see farmers and market gardeners who come here and take up that calling to be placed in a position where they would be viable and where they would have a worthwhile economic future in front of them. We do not want to see them fail. One does not want to pursue the reasons as to why there were bad debts. That is understandable in the circumstances. We are pleased to see that the interest rates have been reduced. That, I think, is a good thing in all the circumstances. So that by and large, Sir, we have small complaint on this side of the House in regard to the provisions of this Bill. We agree that it is in the public interest and that it should be introduced as a public measure. To the extent that the door is now open for the trustees to assist a larger number of people and in a more substantial manner and make their economic future more secure than would otherwise have been the case we are very pleased indeed to lend our support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members of the House for their support. I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that I regret I cannot extend the provisions of the will. After all the provisions of the will in regard to certain basic things should remain. For instance, when we talk about persons of British birth, I understand from the trustees there are numerous immigrants of British birth who went to East Africa who now want assistance to come to South Africa.

They were born in Britain.

Yes, they were born in Britain. I do not think we can go too far in completely upsetting a will in which certain terms are definitely laid down. But where it is simply a question of increasing the amount, there is a big fund, and lowering the interest rate and increasing the period of repayment, those are not matters of fundamental importance as far as the provisions of the will are concerned. But when we have to deal with the question of persons of British birth who by the will are entitled to this facility—and there is a definite provision to that effect in the will—then I think the trustees are correct in not asking that it should be extended any further. I feel that they have gone as far as they possibly can without drastically nullifying the provisions of the will made in 1920. I thank hon. members for their support.

I move—

When the War Measures Continuation Amendment Act was debated in this House in 1952, the Minister of Finance gave an undertaking that all State Departments still charged with administering the war measures would receive instructions to investigate the question of the further extension to 30 June 1965 of those war measures which were no longer absolutely necessary. Further, the Departments concerned were to investigate the possibility or desirability of embodying in permanent legislation those war measures which still had to be enforced.

In terms of this undertaking, I piloted through this House last year the Import and Export Control Act, 1963 (Act No. 45 of 1963), and to-day I am asking hon. members to approve in principle the provisions contained in this Price Control Bill which will replace on a permanent basis the present price control regulations (Proclamation No. 185 of 1946).

As I have repeatedly stated in this House before, it is the policy of the Government, as and when circumstances allow, to suspend price control on commodities and once having suspended it, not lightly to reinstate it. In those circumstances hon. members may ask why it is now essential to pass permanent legislation, particularly in view of the background against which price control was instituted during and just after the war, when commodities were scarce in relation to the demand, whereas to-day there are no shortages. My reply to that is that although price control is at present being applied to only a few commodities like sugar, coal, firearms, ammunition, etc., it is still necessary to allow the speedy machinery provided by the price control regulations to continue to operate in order effectively to combat the tendency on the part of certain groups to fix prices amongst themselves. I can supply hon. members with a complete list of the commodities the prices of which are still being controlled, if required.

The question has also been raised as to whether the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955 (Act No. 24 of 1955), is not sufficient to deal with this practice where people arrive at price agreements amongst themselves, in cases where that has a harmful effect. My immediate reply to this is that the procedure prescribed in terms of this Act is, from the very nature of the matter, a very lengthy one, and that in cases of price control problems the harm will already have been done by the time all the provisions of the Act have been complied with. Moreover, the provisions of the Monopolies Act are much too one-sided, and this Act was never intended to deal with price control problems in all their various facets.

Therefore, in spite of my statement in regard to the Government’s policy in connection with price control, care constantly has to be taken to guard against the natural tendency on the part of businessmen under certain circumstances to want to increase prices. It therefore follows that if there is no price control legislation, the Government will be powerless when such practices are applied.

A final point I wish to emphasize, before saying something about the contents of the Bill itself, is that this proposed legislation is purely of an enabling nature. No enforced or necessarily continuous application of price control is prescribed in the Bill, and any control which may be applied in this connection will follow the pattern of Government policy. There may even be times when, although this enabling legislation exists, there will be no price control whatever. But nobody can make such a prediction with any degree of certainty.

In so far as the contents of the Bill are concerned, I may say that the existing war measure, adapted to present-day circumstances and requirements, is embodied in the Bill. There are no appreciable deviations, and in most cases the differences between the existing war measure and this one merely amount to improvements in the legal language and the omission of provisions which may more suitably be embodied in regulations which may be issued in terms of this Bill. The most important provisions in the proposed Bill, which I merely wish to mention at this stage, seeing that they can more suitably be discussed in detail in the Committee Stage, are the following.

In Clause 2 the Minister is empowered to appoint a price controller, who will perform his duties subject to the control of the Minister. The Secretary for Trade and Industry, who in the past I entrusted with this task, will also fill this position in future.

Clause 3 empowers the price controller, in turn, to appoint officials in the Public Service as deputy price controllers, price control supervisors and price control inspectors.

In Clauses 4 and 5 the price controller is empowered by way of notice given in the Government Gazetteto determine maximum prices of goods and services, and also the containers in which goods are to be packed. In the performance of this function he can use his discretion in the sense that he can fix various prices in respect of various transactions, areas, etc. Read together with these two clauses, Clause 6 provides that the price controller may impose certain conditions on a seller or auctioneer of goods at a sale by public auction. That is a necessary provision in order to apply price control as effectively as possible.

In the application of price control, and in view of the prosecutions which may possibly ensue as the result of it, it is necessary, in view of the onus of proof which rests on the prosecutor, that price-controlled goods should be properly marked with their fixed prices. It is equally essential to have a provision in the Act that, if required, invoices for articles sold be issued and preserved. In the case of goods normally sold in commerce, this obligation may be laid on the seller as well on the purchaser of the goods, whilst the seller of goods may be required also to keep a register containing particulars of the processing, manufacturing or production costs. These provisions are quite logical requirements and need no further explanation.

The proposed legal provisions in regard to the marking-up of prices, invoices and registers are contained in Clauses 7, 8 and 11.

Another aspect closely connected with price control is the tendency which may arise on the part of some traders to sell certain goods the prices of which are controlled only under certain conditions. A trader may, for example, tell the purchaser of price-controlled goods that he will sell him those goods only on condition that he also buys other goods the price of which is not controlled. It is obvious that price control can be evaded in this way, and therefore the necessary provision is made in Clause 9 for the price controller to prohibit this practice.

Clause 10 of the Bill, regarded superficially, may appear to be somewhat unreasonable. Its object, however, in cases where traders under circumstances which may be favourable to them set out to exploit the public, is to enable the price controller to act immediately, and to prohibit the sale of the goods concerned until such time as a maximum price can be fixed for those goods. Although it may very seldom be necessary to apply this proposed procedure, it is an essential provision in order to combat deliberate exploitation of the buying public.

Clause 12 provides, as in many other existing Acts, that the price controller, for the effective execution of his duties, may demand from manufacturers, traders or their employees information in regard to any aspect which may be important in the fixing of prices.

Although Clause 13 deals with the powers of price control supervisors and inspectors, it is to some extent complementary to the provisions of Clause 12. It amounts to this, that such an official may demand from an employer or employee all the information which may be necessary in the course of an investigation in order to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act are being implemented, including any books, registers and other documents. In view of the confidential nature of business information contained in balance sheets, manufacturing, operational or profit and loss accounts, the price control supervisor or inspector may, however, not demand those documents unless expressly empowered by the price controller to do so.

A further important provision, the principle of which although not occurring very generally in legislation is at the same time not a strange one, is contained in Clause 14. In terms of this clause the price controller is enabled to instruct a seller of goods, in cases where he has made a buyer pay a price higher than the fixed price, to repay to the buyer a sum amounting to twice the difference between the fixed price and the selling price. If the buyer cannot be traced, this amount has to be paid to the Treasury. The same provision will apply in respect of services rendered. In the same way the controller will be able to instruct a seller who has sold goods on condition that the purchaser also buys other goods to repay to the purchaser the price of the other goods bought. These provisions are also contained in the present price control regulations, and any order issued by the controller in terms of these provisions will have the effect of a civil judgment after a copy thereof has been supplied to the clerk of a magistrate’s court. The advantages of these provisions are simply that minor price control contraventions can be dealt with promptly, in addition to the relief afforded to the courts.

In connection with Clause 15 I just want to say that these exemptions are provided for so that the various businesses, such as large bazaars, self-service shops, cafés, etc., which make use of adding machines, may in terms of this clause apply for exemption from certain of the provisions of this Bill. That is essential, due to the fact that adding machines cannot put down on the strips of paper all the information which in terms of the requirements of this Bill must be entered on invoices.

Clause 16 provides for the validity of certain evidence in court cases in connection with alleged price control contraventions, while Clause 17 places the onus of proof of his innocence in connection with contraventions committed by employees and other subordinates on the employer or manager, etc., of a business.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are of quite a general nature and really contain no new principles in so far as legislation is concerned, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to expatiate on that.

In conclusion, I may perhaps just mention that the South West Africa Administration, which was fully consulted with reference to Clause 21, expressed its approval of the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. Minister has done his best this afternoon to create the impression that he is introducing what is really a harmless little Bill. He has assured us that this is simply an enabling Bill and that he is taking no further powers—in fact not as many powers as now exist in the existing War Measures Regulations. That may be so in the eyes of the hon. Minister. But the fact remains that price control has hitherto been regarded in this country as essentially an emergency measure. The hon. Minister has frankly said this afternoon that until recently he has repeatedly told the House that very thing, that as late as 1959 he told the House that it was neither necessary nor desirable to incorporate in permanent legislation the War Measure dealing with price control. It is true that in 1962 the Minister very briefly did say something quite different when he said that “events have shown that enabling legislation, or enabling authority for certain control measures should permanently be at the disposal of the Department”. That was the first intimation that we had that the hon. Minister had changed his mind. Now I listened to the hon. Minister very carefully this afternoon to try and learn what the certain events are that made him make, that made his Government make, such a radical departure in the economic policy which has hitherto been followed, and I am bound to say that I have not heard of any from the hon. the Minister. He has told us that the hon. Minister of Finance asked his Department to examine the position as to which of the emergency measures should or should not continue, and apart from that, he has not mentioned any event at all, and he simply mentioned that although the price control measure has been very little used in recent years—and he mentioned the very small number of articles and things which are still under price control—there were still traders, merchants who were liable to take steps to make undue profits. That is the sole reason which the hon. Minister has given us for introducing this measure this afternoon at very short notice—only at our request was this Bill not dealt with last week before most people had even seen it. We can therefore not be blamed for asking why is it (a) that the Bill is being introduced at all, and (b) why is it introduced in such a hurried manner? We know of course the hon. Minister’s personal belief in this question. The hon. Minister is a national socialist. He makes no bones about it. I am not belittling the Minister. The Minister has stated in this House quite frankly, and he is entitled to express it, and I am not criticizing it—I am simply stating it as a matter of fact—he has told us in this House that in his opinion everything ought to be State-controlled right down to the individual person. That is his ideal of a perfect Government. He is entitled to that view. I am not querying it.

When did I say that?

The hon. Minister has a bad memory. I ask him to re-read his maiden speech in this House in 1948.

I deny that I ever said that.

Before he denies that, I suggest that he should read his speech again. He told the House that in his opinion the human person could not possibly reach his highest state of perfection except as a member of the State, and he held forth at great length in that speech on what he generally regarded as what he called “Liberalism”. It is perfectly clear from that speech that he is in favour of a very large measure of State control over the life of the individual. If the hon. Minister has changed his mind in that regard in the same way that he has changed his mind in respect of price control, let him get up and recant, and I will accept it; but until he does, we are entitled to take that maiden speech of his as representing his political credo.

Our belief on this side of the House of course is quite different. We believe that provided goods and services are in free supply, the ordinary natural laws of supply and demand and free competition are the best means of maintaining reasonable prices and reasonable conditions, both for the supplier, the manufacturer and the consumer, and that measures like price control only become necessary first of all when demand exceeds supply—in other words when there is an acute shortage, a considerable shortage—in order to protect against the kind of people that the hon. Minister referred to, people profiteering, making undue profits, and the other case is when prices are artificially fixed by combinations of people, or rings or cartels, call them what you like. Of course one has to remember that when these regulations were passed and put into force there was no Monopolies Act at all and therefore these regulations had to be drafted in a very wide form in order to cover actions of that sort which to-day we would regard as monopolistic practices. The hon. Minister has referred to the Monopolies Act and says that the process under the Monopolies Act is a very slow one and that great harm can be done because of the slowness of the machinery. I can only say that we have had some years of experience of that Monopolies Act, which appears to have worked very smoothly, and in most cases has resulted in it being found that there were not malpractices going on. But if the macinery is slow, I suggest that the brains of the Department should be applied to endeavouring to hasten that machinery up and to make it more effective. Broadly speaking, the Monopolies Act has worked fairly satisfactorily and has not created trouble for anybody, and has, I believe, achieved its object. But if it is too slow, I quite agree that we should try to make it more effective and that we should try to create further machinery which will enable the purposes of the Act to be more efficiently and effectively put into effect, to avoid the damage to which the hon. Minister quite correctly referred.

Sir, at the present moment the monopolistic side is being taken care of the Monopolies Act. The very fact that the Monopolies Act has been in existence as a threat, if you like, over the heads of people, is in itself a very great deterrent—I think the hon. Minister will agree—in making people think before they indulge in practices which would, if they were inquired into, lead to a conflict with the Government under the Monopolies Act. I think that is probably the most valuable part of the Act, the fact that people know that the Act is in existence and that if they do indulge in those practices, they are liable to get into very serious trouble.

But as to the other part, does the hon. Minister suggest that there is likely to be any shortage of goods or services in the near future? At the present moment, the stores, the shops are packed with goods, domestic factory production is increasing, import control is being further relaxed, and it would look to the ordinary uninitiated person that the last thing one could expect or look for in the foreseeable future, failing accidents, is any kind of shortage of consumer goods. Does the hon. Minister suggest—I ask quite seriously—that there is any serious profiteering going on? Does he suggest that the public are being fleeced, either by the manufacturer or by the trader? If so, one naturally asks why no steps are being taken under the powers which the hon. Minister already has and which he says would not be increased if this Bill is passed—in other words the position as far as that is concerned will be exactly the same (as far as he is concerned, as far as administrative action is concerned) as it is at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, price control is a very pleasant-sounding phrase and I think the trusting public are rather apt to attach more importance to it than it really warrants, because whilst undoubtedly it has performed a useful purpose in some instances in preventing profiteering, price control also, as we know from experience, has considerable disadvantages. In the first place, price control depends on the price controller fixing a maximum price, and our experience during the war and after the war was that the moment you fix a maximum price, it automatically becomes the minimum price, and we can quote numbers of instances of commodities in general use which in fact were being sold at prices quite considerably below the price which was finally fixed by the price controller as the maximum price, which meant that the price instead of coming down, actually went up. The other thing in price control is that if as a result of price fixation supply diminishes or the supply of goods becomes shorter (and even if it does not) you invariably find a black market developing in that particular line, which means that people pay more if there is a shortage and they cannot get what they want. I am not sure that during the war years and postwar years black marketing did not cause more trouble to the hon. Minister’s Department than the actual administration of price control itself. But in all those cases it is the consumer who suffers. Prices, so far from being reduced, actually tend to go up, and with it up goes the cost of living. So that the price control system is not the unmixed blessing which some people rather tend to think it is. I think at the moment the public reaction to a Bill of this sort is rather liable to be tinged by the apparent beginning of a period of inflation. I think they rather tend to think that price control can prevent inflation. I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that that is an erroneous idea. Price control has very little to do with preventing inflation. Let us take one or two recent examples. Milk went up in price. Milk is controlled by the Dairy Control Board, and as far as I know the price controller has no jurisdiction over it, but it has gone up. Petrol went up and shipping rates went up by 10 per cent. Both these increases were announced by the Minister himself; in other words, they obviously had the approval of the price controller and he was satisfied that these increases were necessary. As a matter of fact, the Government itself has not been backward in contributing to this threatened inflation people are talking about. Take the recent rebate on shirting materials, the withdrawal of that rebate for the purpose of assisting one particular manufacturer in this country who does not pretend to be able to supply anything like even an appreciable portion of the needs of the country. We are told that that will lead to an increase of 40c or 50c on shirts in the near future. That is inflation, and that is being done deliberately by the Government. I can also quote other instances of blanket tariff measures which have been granted to people making things which cannot possibly meet more than a fraction, say 25 per cent or less, of the needs of the country, but in order to give them protection it has had the effect of putting up the price of the other 75 per cent of goods imported. Price control cannot stop that, unless the controller is going to insist on the increased cost due to the withdrawal of the rebate being borne by the manufacturer. If he does that, all I can say is that there will be far fewer shirts made, and then again you will have a black market in shirts. We have had an increase in the price of furniture. I believe that announcement was made by the Association of Furniture Manufacturers. In other words, it was an increase announced by the combined trade. Now I do not know whether it was justified or not, but essentially that is a matter, I should say, which should fall under the Monopolies Act for inquiry, and if not under that Act, then under the price controller. If there is any query about it, it can speedily be dealt with in terms of the powers the Minister now has. We were told this morning that the price of coffee and cereals is also going to be increased. That is probably being done by associations of manufacturers as well, which makes it comparatively simple for the Department to inquire into it at very short notice, to ascertain how necessary these increases are. They may be necessary; I do not know, but the fact remains that inflation is due not to profiteering or to charging excess retail prices. As long as goods are in free supply, that really cannot happen, but it is due to increased costs, which the Minister and his officials, when they look into these things and are satisfied that costs have increased, have to agree that prices have to go up. The main reason for the increased costs at the moment, of course, is the shortage of manpower, which is the creation of this Government. It is the Government which created the shortage of manpower which we are suffering from at present. Over many years that has been their deliberate policy, and now the country is reaping what the Government has sown, but in the labour market today there are stories that up to 20 per cent overtime is being worked in some factories to cope with the business. It is said that there is a black market developing for labour in the building trade on the Reef. All that puts up costs and leads to inflation. Neither the existing war measures nor this Bill will help that state of affairs, and it will not assist the public to face the question of the cost of living, if it rises, unless the Minister intends to use the very wide powers contained in this Bill, e.g. the powers granted to him in Clause 4 (1) (c) and (d), which enables him to fix the maximum charge which may be charged by any person for any specific service. Unless he is going to use that as a means of keeping down costs and freezing wages, and uses it as a back-door method of preventing any increase in wages, and in that way to keep down costs and to prevent inflation, this Bill will not take us much further in combating inflation. Up to now these emergency powers were temporary, although temporary is a very stretchable word. It has been what one might call a bi-partisan policy; it was agreed to by all sides of the House that they were in the widest sense of the term emergency powers which were not to be regarded as permanent by either side of the House. As the Minister has told us, price control in recent years has shrunk to very small dimensions. The most valuable work it has been doing has been to establish the practice which has grown up amongst certain important industrialists of consulting with the Department before they do raise prices. I think that is a very sound thing and that is the reason why in many cases the Minister recently has announced an increase, because he was consulted by the people concerned. But I have to say that we on this side need far more information from the Government than the hon. the Minister has seen fit to give us this afternoon before we would be justified in agreeing to depart from what has been a long-established policy, agreed to by both sides of this House, and which has worked very well and from which there has been no demand to depart by anyone.

Our position on this side is quite clear. We believe that price control is essentially for use in an emergency. It was necessary during the war, and how we had to fight that side of the House in order to get that measure through! Still, that was an emergency, and there was no alternative. Of course, since 1948 this country has really been on the brink of an emergency ever since. The country has gone through crisis after crisis, any one of which might have landed us in an emergency, and one or two of which did in fact do so, and as far as we can see, as long as this Government sits on those benches, that state of affairs will continue. I do not think the Minister or anyone else could honestly say that there is not the slightest probability of a state of emergency arising in the near future, as long as this Government is in power, whereby these powers might not have to be exercised at short notice. For that reason, and in the interests of the country, and not in the interests of the Government, we have been willing and are still willing to renew the powers which the Minister now has—the powers which the Minister seeks to incorporate in this Bill will not increase his powers—from time to time when he comes to Parliament and asks for them to be renewed.

Did you not ask a few years ago that all these regulations should be replaced by legislation?

No, I did not.

That was the time when he wanted to join the Progressive Party.

I was the Minister who repealed the War Measures Act, and at that time we said that the existing Emergency Regulations would continue for the present but that we would continue to dismantle them as quickly as we could, and that for such measures as eventually proved to be necessary permanently it might be necessary to have legislation. But that is a very different thing, and we do not believe that a case has been made out for changing the basic policy of this country by making price control a permanent feature of the Statute Book. We believe that price control is there for an emergency and we are quite willing to go on renewing these powers for the Minister periodically when he asks us to do so. But we maintain that he has made out no case whatever this afternoon for this legislation, and moreover there has been no consultation with interested parties over what is really not a little Bill but a revolutionary Bill. It is a complete change in Government policy. It is a revolutionary piece of legislation and the consumers, the trade unions and commerce and industry have none of them seen this Bill, let alone been consulted. The hon. the Prime Minister has a very important Economic Advisory Council. Has this Bill been submitted to them for their views and their advice? If not, what is the use of that Council? Surely the Minister will agree that people of all shades of opinion and all the various interests are entitled to be heard on a matter like this. It may even be that the Government itself has much better reasons than have been disclosed this afternoon for introducing this legislation, and we are entitled to have those reasons and to have an opportunity to examine them. I therefore want to move—

I might just add that if the hon. the Minister cannot see his way clear to acceding to what is a very reasonable request on behalf of all the people of South Africa, consumers, commercial people, manufacturers, etc., we shall be compelled to vote against the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the hon. member for Constantia wants to fight but that he does not know what to fight about. We are dealing here with something which exists in practice. He calls this a revolutionary Bill but only two seconds prior to that he said this Bill gave the Minister no further powers than he already had at the moment. These war measures which create the price control machinery have been in existence for nearly 20 years. The Minister has the right to put those measures in operation at any time and the hon. member admits that the Bill does not give the Minister any greater powers than those war regulations give him, yet he calls it a revolutionary Bill. In that case this revolution must have been going on for 20 years, yet nobody has died and nobody will die during the next 20 years because of it. But the hon. member is pining for those war years; his whole heart is yearning for them. I may tell him that those years will never come back. They are gone forever. The hon. member for Constantia himself could not resist the temptation of making a little stupid political remark. He says the Minister is introducing this legislation because he is a National Socialist. The only thing that surprised me was that the hon. member did not say that it was the Broederbond who was behind this Bill! As far as I know the Minister is a member of the Broederbond. What nonsense! The hon. member says that since this Government has been in power we have been through one crisis after the other, but after every crisis they have conjured up we have been more prosperous. First we had the crisis of the High Court of Parliament, then we had the crisis of the Torch Commando, then the crisis of the Commonwealth, then that of the Republic. We go from one crisis to the other yet we are so fat that our eyes are popping out further from our heads than ever before, and economically we are bursting at the seams.

What is this Bill, Sir? All are agreed that we do not want the war measures as a permanent part of our legislation in this country; we are living in peace. Never before have we had greater peace than to-day. Obviously with the passage of time, if you regard the war regulations as essential for the administration of the country, it is better to convert them into legislation. That is the normal thing to do and that is all the Minister is doing. On the evidence of the hon. member for Constantia he is not taking any further powers than those he has under the war regulations. If this legislation constitutes such a great danger why have the war regulations not constituted an equally great danger over the past 20 years and why have the hon. member for Constantia and his party not suggested the abolition of those regulations, and that those great powers should be taken away from the Minister? But they did not do that because they did not regard them as dangerous. It is ridiculous to make a bogy out of this legislation. You can only expect that from people who want to quarrel and who do not know what to quarrel about. This legislation only gives the Minister a weapon that he can use at any time for the protection of the consumer. The hon. member referred to the increase in prices that has taken place recently, increases which the Minister had approved, as in the case of petrol and shipping charges. But the mere fact that we are living at a time in which there are price increases and in which there is a tendency for people to increase their prices, makes this a suitable time to entrench those powers in the law so that when the Minister thinks it necessary to use those powers he will be in a position to do so.

The hon. member for Constantia now asks the Minister to apply the anti-monopolistic legislation in those cases where cartels are formed and where there are unreasonable price increases. Surely the hon. member knows that if ever there was a laborious Act on our Statute Book it is that anti-monopolies Act.

Amend it.

You cannot amend it because all the machinery you can possibly create to combat monopolies is completely different from the machinery to combat unreasonable price increases. There have been a few inquiries under this anti-monopolistic Act and I do not know of one that took less than a year. I think most of them lasted longer than a year. We had the one into the C.N.S. That lasted two to three years. That is why I say it is a laborious Act, because it is only after the most thorough investigation that you can declare such an organization to be a monopolistic organization and then you have to give it an opportunity of putting matters right within a certain period. It is absolutely impossible to put that legislation in operation against a number of grocers who meet over the week-end and decide to increase the price of flour by 10 per cent from Monday. You cannot let the consumer wait for a year or two while you investigate the matter. The Minister must have the power to act immediately. He must have the power to instruct the price controller to institute an investigation immediately to find out whether there is justification for such a price increase.

The hon. member for Constantia makes the ridiculous statement that the fixing of a maximum price always leads to a minimum price; that the maximum price which the controller lays down automatically becomes the minimum price. But that is only the position during a time of scarcity. [Interjections.] The anti-monopolistic legislation in America is much more effective than ours. You have an increasing tendency to form cartels in this country, just as you have in America; the coming together of certain interests with the object of increasing prices; and the small man is increasingly being ousted, something which is a big factor in free trade in South Africa. One of their members who is a sensible member in this respect has a motion on the Order Paper for the protection of the small trader. Why did he put that on the Order Paper? Is a position not developing in which the small man is being ousted more and more? There is nothing more dangerous in your entire economy than to allow those people the freedom to form rings and cartels in order to exploit the small trader and the consumer. Nor is price fixation something foreign to the free world. It is not foreign to America or to England or to any other free economy. Price fixation is a permanent part of the British economy and legislation and also in the American legislation and all those Governments have the power to put a stop to price increases. Surely the hon. member for Constantia knows that the days of completely free trade with no interference at all on the part of the Government, the days of a free economy where the Government leaves everything to the so-called law of supply and demand, are something of the past. Surely he knows how this old law that supply and demand should regulate everything has been abused and that it has led to the exploitation of the poor man and the small trader. Every country in the world has created some kind of machinery to combat that tendency. The hon. member for Constantia is quite right when he says that there is price control in times of war and scarcity. The hon. member says we are living in another period, but there is nothing to ensure that we will not experience a scarcity in the one or other section of our economy. In these days in which we are living with boycotts and threatened boycotts we do not know whether there will be enough coffee in future. Ghana may decide not to export cocoa to this country. A thing like that happens within 14 days and the price suddenly rockets sky-high. The hon. member now wants the Minister to combat that sort of thing in terms of the anti-monopolistic Act. Surely that is totally unrealistic. You must be in the position, as we were during the war, to create such machinery within a week. That machinery exists to-day; the whole question to-day is simply whether you must entrench that in permanent legislation. The hon. member says you cannot combat inflation by means of price control. I agree with that but when you have inflation you have a set of circumstances in which the unscrupulous person, under the cloak of rising costs and inflation, pushes up prices with one object only and that is of exploiting the consumer and making a quick profit. I agree that price control will not prevent inflation but it is a weapon which the Minister must have at such a time in order to control the position and to prevent any abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why hon. members are opposing this legislation. The war regulations exist to-day and all the Minister is doing is to make them a permanent part of the law of the land, as the position is in England and in America. However, I want to conclude by dealing with the last statements made by the hon. member for Constantia, namely, that you get inflation as a result of a shortage of manpower. He blames this Government for the shortage of manpower. It is quite clear why there is this complaint about the shortage of manpower in South Africa. A few days ago Mr. Rissik, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, said that this question of a shortage of manpower was grossly exaggerated and that there were a hundred-and-one ways in which we could make better use of our manpower. But it is high time that we realized what the object was of these continual attacks, this incessant complaining about the so-called manpower shortage. This incessant complaining comes mainly from the Chambers of Commerce, mainly from the Transvaal Chamber of Commerce and they are supported by the S.A. Chamber of Industries. The whole attempt to make us believe that this manpower shortage is causing such a serious bottle-neck, that it is ham-stringing our economy to such an extent, is nothing else than an attempt on the part of big industrialists to get us to abandon our policy of job reservation. That is what it is and nothing else. There is not such a serious shortage of manpower. There is a shortage of manpower throughout the world.

It is true that we have a shortage of manpower in this country but what we have in addition, which is much worse, is the inability on the part of trade and industry to make proper use of the manpower at their disposal and now they want to follow the path of “least resistance”, namely, to abolish job reservation and to allow the Bantu to enter all the various spheres of work. In that case the whole problem of the shortage of manpower will be solved! Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple piece of legislation. The Minister has these powers to-day in terms of the war regulations. The war is 20 years behind us and I think any reasonable person will be of the opinion that the Minister should retain the power to apply them when he deems it necessary. Let us say good-bye to the war regulations and entrench those powers in legislation. The hon. member for Constantia has a remedy if the Minister acts unreasonably. The Vote of the Minister is discussed annually in this House. He is always in a position, therefore, to expose any unreasonable action on the part of the Minister and to haul the Minister over the coals if he has acted unreasonably under this legislation. I think the position is very clear and that it is not worthwhile wasting much time on it. I think this House will gladly give the Minister these powers.

Listening to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) I wondered whether he was going to take the line that this measure introduced by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was a measure to control inflation. He went on to say that he knew that this particular measure cannot control inflation. I think he is correct there. Then he went back again and started talking about the wholesalers as against the small man and he came back to the inflation theme again. We do say that this is a revolutionary measure. After all, import control has been a war measure over the last 20 years, and now this Government is making it permanent by placing it on the Statute Book. We do say too that it may be necessary for us to agree to the continuation of this Bill as a measure because, as the hon. member for Constantia has said, we have passed through difficult periods recently in this country of ours and we will possibly continue to have crises from time to time until, as the hon. member said, there is a change of Government.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says that it is a slow business to use the monopolistic measures that we have on our Statute Book to control monopolies. I agree with him, but I can tell him that a price control investigation takes about twice as long, and I can tell him that recently price control was lifted on milk in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban simply because the Milk Control Board was not able to keep pace with the investigation of prices in these various areas and had no alternative but to lift control in these areas. That only goes to show how slowly that machinery functions; it is about twice as slow as the machinery under the anti-monopoly measures. The Minister has the power and it is up to him to exercise the necessary control. The industrialist, the man in the street, has become punch-drunk as far as legislative measures passed by this Parliament are concerned, and when new legislation is put forward he simply accepts it under protest or possibly even without protesting. This particular Bill, as the hon. member for Constantia has correctly said, has not been seen by the representatives of industry or labour. There has been no consultation at all as to whether this measure should become permanent. We on this side do not know why it is being introduced. It was introduced by this side of the House as a war measure during the war. At that time it was essential because goods were in short supply; there was a black market in goods and it was necessary to stamp that out. But at the present moment we cannot see the necessity. If goods are in short supply the Minister has the necessary powers in his hands. We have a free supply of goods at the present moment, but if there is a shortage of a commodity which is subject to import control, it is up to the Minister to take the necessary steps; he can lift import control on that item. There are certain commodities which we do not get to-day because of boycotts, but I am fairly certain that indirectly those commodities do find their way into this country of ours, so there is no necessity for any item to be in short supply in this country. The matter rests in the hands of the Minister; he can make every commodity available in this country and he can make them available at competitive prices. As I have said, if any commodity is in short supply he can lift import control.

Sir, the introduction of a Bill of this kind in this House does have its effect on industry outside. The industrialist is not a philanthropist; he is there to make a living, but if he is going to be faced with a measure such as this on the Statute Book he will start to wonder whether the commodities which he produces in his factory are going to be subjected to price control. He tries to produce his articles as economically as possible, but he does not know whether overnight the Minister is going to gazette a fixed control price in respect of his goods.

Why do you not argue that under the war regulations?

The war regulations are there to take care of a crisis. We say that we may be faced with crises…

But the war regulations still exist.

Yes, I know, but it is now proposed to make this a permanent measure. Are we to understand from the Minister that we are going to live in a permanent state of crisis in this country? Is that why this particular measure is being introduced?

Then there is another aspect. These price control regulations do not only control the prices of commodities in the various shops. Under this measure the price of labour and services can be controlled. The Minister can fix the price of labour or the resale of labour in any form. He can, for instance, control medical fees; he can control attorneys’ fees; he can control the price of any service that is rendered in this country. He can control any price and he can do so overnight. It may take up to two years to investigate whether the price which was fixed is correct or not. I know because I have had experience of the way in which the price control regulations operate. This measure therefore affects not only the industrialist; it also affects the man in the street. In other words, as a result of price control on his labour, which might very well come, he can have his wages fixed. Sir, we have just had a debate in this House on a motion of no-confidence. The introduction of a Bill such as this at this stage is tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in the Government. It is an admission that this Government has no confidence in the future of this country, a country in which there is a free supply of goods, a country which enjoys a boom in trade and which is on the way up. In introducing this Bill the Government is moving a vote of no-confidence in itself. Look what happened in Germany after the last world war; look at the measure of prosperity achieved by Germany as the result of competition. To-day Germany is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But this Government lacks the confidence to allow free competition.

Is there no price control in Western Germany?

No.

You just go over and see!

This Government have not the confidence in themselves and that is why they find it necessary to introduce this particular Bill. This Government has been so tied up with racialistic policies that it has lost control over labour. The productivity of the individual has gone down because the Government has lost control over it. Sir, if the Government would only investigate and fully use the labour resources of this country it would not be necessary to introduce measures such as price control. The Minister tells us that this measure is necessary, but I would like to tell him finally that this particular Government and this country of ours is suffering in another sphere as the result of price control. We have been trying over the years to make out a case for the removal of the price control over gold or an adjustment in the price of gold. The Minister knows himself therefore what it is to be subject to price control. You can imagine what happens to the industrialist or to the worker when he is subject to the same control which the Minister is trying to impose on us at the present moment. Sir, in conclusion I say that this Bill is nothing but a vote, of no-confidence in this Government. They have no confidence in the future of this country, otherwise they would not bring a measure such as this before the House.

The hon. member who has just sat down said that this Government had no confidence in the future and that was why it was introducing legislation of this nature. It is precisely because this Government has confidence in the future and it is precisely because this Government want to do something for the future of this country and its people that we have this measure before us to-day. If this measure is so harmful, it will be of great advantage to the Opposition because they will then be able to attack the Government at the next election for having placed this measure on the Statute Book. Price control was instituted during the war years. At that stage we were fighting a hot war. What is the difference as far as the public is concerned whether it is a hot war or a cold war when the idea is to protect the public? We are fighting a cold war at the moment and as a result of that cold war in the world to-day there are certain circumstances which have their effect on South Africa. If they affect us here, why should the Government and why cannot the Government institute price control? The price control that we are instituting to-day is to a certain extent the price that South Africa has to pay because of the policy of integration that the world is trying to force upon us. We have to protect our country against that sort of thing. Salary increases are forced upon us by this same Opposition and their hangers-on and the people who co-operate with them. Mr. Speaker, an increase in salary which is not at the same time accompanied by an increase in productivity raises the price structure unnecessarily. There are numbers of reasons why prices have risen. Money is plentiful in the country to-day and this position has been artificially created. There are numbers of reasons for it. One reason is the P.A.Y.E. system of income-tax collection that we have put into operation as a result of which the public of South Africa have more money to spend. The Government has taken every possible step to stimulate our economy and to encourage it. One of the complaints made by the Opposition in the past was that this Government was not doing enough to promote our economy and now that the Government is doing just that they do not want this same Government to take steps to control prices so that the poor section of our people will not be exploited. It is quite obvious that price control is not applied in order to harm one section of the people. If the Opposition feel that the public may be harmed by the application of this measure, then I would like them to tell me how the public can be harmed. The poor man and the lower paid person who is not so well off will be protected by this measure because by means of this measure the Government will ensure that prices will not rise sky high. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) said that the Government should lift import control and that if this was done there would be a free flow of goods to South Africa. Will we be able to import fresh milk if the Government lifts import control? I can also mention numbers of other goods. The standard of living of the public must be protected and it is very necessary therefore to apply price control. If price control is brought in, the private entrepreneur, the industrialist, will also be protected because the prices of material will not rise disproportionately either. The hon. member for Salt River also says that labour and service costs can also be controlled under this measure. Why should we only apply price control to commodities and not to services and labour? One buys an article and pays a certain price for it but the labour costs make up the largest portion of that price. Why is it suddenly such a great crime for this Government to want to introduce price control over services rendered? If the person selling a certain article cannot ask more than a certain amount for it, why then should a person be able to ask an unfair price for services rendered? I want to know from the Opposition whether they agree that a person should be able to ask any price at all for his labour—an unrealistic price that cannot be paid by the poor man? Are they in favour of it? The Government will now place this measure on the Statute Book permanently and it will also serve as a timely warning to trade and industry to co-operate in order to ensure that price control is not applied to them at a later stage. If they cooperate in time and ensure that their prices are not raised unnecessarily, price control will not affect them.

I was interested in listening to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. van Zyl), because he said some very interesting things. First of all he confirmed what was said by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) that we had moved from one crisis to another since this Government has been in power, because the hon. member says that we are in a cold war. Well, a cold war and a crisis are very much the same thing. But then he says that salaries should not be increased unless there is increased production. Sir, that is a very wide statement to make. Is the hon. member suggesting that last year the hon. the Minister of Transport should not have put up the salaries of railwaymen? Is he suggesting that there should be no increase in the salaries of teachers unless their already overcrowded classes of 40 or 50 are increased to 60, 70 or 80? Or is he suggesting that Post Office officials should not have an increase in salary unless the poor postman carries 20 lbs. of postal matter instead of 10 lb.? Is that what the hon. member means?

Do not be ridiculous.

Then he goes on to tell us that we should control prices in order to control the economy. He tells us that we on this side of the House—and it is true—have been asking the Government for years to take such steps as would make our economy more buoyant, such steps as would bring the increase in our production more in line with the increased production in other countries of the world. He now tells us that we have gone too far and that we should bring in price control so that we can in effect stop increased production. Because price control can stop it. If you fix the price of a commodity you can very easily stop any increased production of the commodity, and it may have very serious effects on the entire wheels of your economy.

But, Sir, to get back to the Bill. The hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill really told us very little. I think the reason for that is that there is a war measure in existence and that there is very little change, except for some deletions, in this particular Bill. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) went on to tell us that this measure had been on the Statute Book for 20 years and he could not understand what we were complaining about. But, Sir, there are some very basic differences between the circumstances at the time of the last world war and the circumstances to-day. When the war measures were originally put on the Statute Book we were then in a state of real crisis. There was a shortage of goods because there was no shipping; there was a shortage of goods because production had been handed over to the national war effort; there was a shortage of goods because manpower was being diverted to that war effort. The circumstances at that time were completely different to the circumstances of to-day. There was hoarding, there was black marketing, there were shortages and there were all the problems which go with a war when a country is throwing its entire weight behind a war effort. Secondly, the measure was a temporary one. The measure was predicated on the basis that as soon as the war was over, and as soon as the difficult post-war period was over, the measure would be removed from the Statute Book. But perhaps the most important factor was that the measure was brought in without consultation with the people who were vitally concerned. When you have a war on your hands you have not got time for select committees or inquiries; you have not got time for anything more than a discussion here or there with a particular body which may be regarded as speaking for a particular group of persons. Bur, Sir, there is no hurry to-day. The hon. the Minister is now asking us to make this a permanent measure. I honestly do not know what the hon. member for Vereeniging is getting so excited about. [Interjections.] Well, I am perhaps inclined to equate the normal way in which the hon. member addresses the House with excitement. Maybe I am wrong in which case I apologize. We are not asking the Minister to hand over any powers or to do away with any powers which he has today. The hon. member for Constantia has made that quite clear. The hon. member has said, “Let the position remain as it is and we will vote for the extension of the war measure from time to time, or alternatively send the Bill to a select committee”. Sir, what we are asking for are three very simple things. First of all we ask for consultation. We believe that when any measure which affects large sections of the community is put on the Statute Book they should be given an opportunity of airing their views. I was in Johannesburg this week-end and I found that the Federated Chamber of Industry had not had the Bill; the trade unions had not had the Bill, and it was quite impossible to get from those organizations any idea as to how they felt about this Bill because they had not had the Bill and could not study it. Firstly therefore we want consultation. Secondly we want an investigation. It is true that this measure has been on the Statute Book for 20 years, but I am not at all satisfied, and I am sure most members of the House are not satisfied, that the best method of dealing with the problem which the hon. the Minister envisages, is price control, because some very strange things can happen when you have price control. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that the maximum price under price control became the minimum price only in times of scarcity. That unfortunately is not true. There are many groupings in industry to-day where either prices are fixed or there is an agreement regarding prices. I know from personal experience that where the price of a commodity is fixed and you have any reaction to that price, all you have to say is, “but that is the control price” and your problems are over. In the case of the particular commodity with which I had a little to do for quite a long while, we found that when we had price control we got a certain price for the commodity, but the moment price control was removed, the price dropped by nearly 25 per cent because the industry was unable to say to people, “that is the fixed price”, without there being any argument. For two, three or four years after the war the price of that particular commodity was kept high purely because of price control.

But, Sir, there are other factors. We have heard something about the Monopolistic Act this afternoon. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question: He has lately agreed to an increase in the price of petrol. I understand that petrol is one of his quasi-controlled commodities; it is not controlled in terms of the war measure but it is controlled by arrangement with the Minister and his Department for the common good of the country and with the threat perhaps of the application of the war measures which are still in existence. I want to ask the Minister this; What would the price of petrol be (a) if the Monopolistic Act had been applied to petrol so that there could not be one common price and (b) if there was no price control? What does he think the price of petrol would be? I think it would be very considerably less than the price of petrol to-day. The other fact about price control is this, that every action of the Government where price control has been imposed, automatically increases the price of that commodity. For example when the hon. the Minister of Transport saw fit to put up the price of conveying goods by 10 per cent, where there was not price control a large amount of that increase was absorbed by the different sectors of industry. In some cases, it is true, prices went up to the full degree, in other cases to a lesser degree but in some cases not at all. But when the price of a commodity is fixed, then immediately there is any action by the Government either by way of import duties or by way of an increase in railage rates, or any other action which increases the price of a commodity, the price of that commodity goes up immediately and the increase is passed on to the consumer.

Sir, I do not think that the hon. the Minister can tell us in all honesty that the question of price control in South Africa has ever really been properly investigated; that the brains of the country have been brought to bear on this vexed problem. I do not think he can tell us that this House is in a position to say at this moment that there should or should not be price control, and I think he will agree that if this thing is to be properly ventilated and legislation is to be put on the Statute Book which is in the best interests of everybody in the country, then the correct and the proper thing to do is to send the Bill to a select committee where we can look at it and see what is necessary. I do not want to discuss the details of the Bill now; we will discuss them in Committee. There are many aspects that are obnoxious. Let us have the best legislation we can get. There is no hurry, Sir. We have legislation on the Statute Book that can take care of any emergency that might arise; it only expires in 1965. Let us extend it if necessary, but if the hon. the Minister wants to put new legislation on the Statute Book, let us have a proper inquiry and let us do a real job of work instead of these quick, hurried pieces of legislation that are introduced into this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to me that hon. members opposite have no case. They have really not advanced any sound argument as to why they are opposing this legislation. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) also said that they were not opposed to it in principle but that it should first be referred to a select committee. The arguments which have been advanced here are really all arguments which do not merit a serious reply. No single argument has been advanced as to why it is necessary for this legislation to be referred to a select committee.

In the first instance the hon. member who has just sat down has said that he is opposed to the legislation as it stands and that it should be referred to a select committee so that there can be consultation. When we consider what the hon. the Minister is asking for here, we ask ourselves why there should be consultation and who will benefit as a result of that consultation. The hon. the Minister has told us that we have reached a stage where it is necessary in the public interest to fix the prices of certain commodities. That is why he asks that what has already been in existence now for 20 years should be translated into permanent legislation. Who has to be consulted? There is no one who need be afraid of this legislation, except perhaps the individual who wants to misuse the present situation to make more money than he is entitled to make. That is the only person who can actually have any objection to this measure and whose opinion ought to be heard. But the general public can only benefit by a law which seeks to protect them against exorbitant and disproportionately high prices. The argument of consultation therefore falls away. The Opposition really have no argument in this regard. The other point that the hon. member raised was that the matter should be investigated. Mr. Speaker, what should be investigated? The Department has now had 20 years’ experience of the situation as has developed since the first emergency regulations—the original regulations—were promulgated. There have been two occasions over the past 20 years on which legislation of this nature has been necessary. The first was when there was a war on and the war created a situation in which there was a great shortage of consumer goods. The production capacity of the country was concentrated upon the manufacture of war material. It was not necessary to import the necessary consumer goods at that time either. And hon. members of that party then had to take action by way of legislation to deal with particular circumstances. The circumstances of the time made it necessary for them to take action where in the normal course of events they would not have interfered. This is the first occasion since then that circumstances have again arisen which have made it necessary for the State to act in this way. In this case the position is reversed. The position is that South Africa is now experiencing a period of very great prosperity and in this time of prosperity it is possible that shortages of commodities may occur, not because factories are not producing but because a great deal of money is in circulation. Because a great deal of money is in circulation we find either that there is a demand for articles for which in the normal course of events no demand would exist or that for some reason or other we cannot import certain articles. For these reasons a situation has again arisen in which somebody has to be protected and that somebody is the general public. They must be protected against individuals. It is not everyone who demands exorbitant prices. The public must be protected against persons who misuse present-day circumstances to demand disproportionately high prices for articles of which there is a temporary shortage. The hon. member who spoke earlier raised the argument of inflation. It is not so much a question of inflation, Sir. The fact remains that production capacity in South Africa is at its maximum. In times of maximum production it does happen that certain articles or commodities are in short supply and that temporary shortages arise. There may be a temporary shortage of a certain article for six months or a year for the simple reason that there is no immediate production capacity to produce that article although there is no doubt that that article will still be produced. Because the hon. the Minister now wants to take action in order to prevent exploitation and the charging of exorbitant prices during these periods of temporary shortage, he is asking for a very normal thing—the machinery to enable him to combat this sort of thing. That is all he is asking. When hon. members opposite now ask that the legislation be referred to a select committee to enable the committee to inquire into this obvious attitude of the Government, they have no case. As the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has said, every country in the world has legislation of this nature for combating prices that are unduly high. I really feel that hon. members opposite are using a forced argument in order to keep the debate going. They have really not advanced a single argument to-day to prove in the first instance that it is necessary to argue against this legislation and in the second instance why the legislation should be referred to a select committee.

The hon. member who has just sat down has suggested that we on this side of the House have made out no case for referring this Bill to a select committee. He has asked certain questions arising from the speech made by the hon. member who spoke before him. First of all he asks: Who should be consulted? The whole of the hon. member’s argument was based on an assumption that we on this side of the House had asked that price control should be done away with altogether. That was not our standpoint. I suggest that it is time, high time, that hon. members opposite met the case which we have made, which is not that price control should be done away with. What our case has been is that this legislation should not be introduced as part of the permanent legislation of this country without making out a case to show that that is necessary, bearing in mind the fact that both this side of the House and that side have up till to-day taken the stand that price control should remain as a temporary measure and should not become permanent legislation in this country.

In view of the fact that it has been Government policy up till the present that price control should not be a permanent measure surely this change in Government policy makes it necessary for a select committee to consider whether or not circumstances have arisen which now make it necessary for something which up to now has been regarded as temporary should become permanent legislation. When the hon. member who has just sat down asks who should be consulted my answer to him is: All interested parties. To say that is not necessary because the war measure has existed for the last 20 years is no argument at all because it has existed as temporary legislation.

Who wishes to be consulted?

Surely the answer to that is obvious: The people who are affected by the legislation. None of them have had an opportunity of having their say because this Bill has been introduced at such short notice. The hon. member also asks what must be investigated? There again his argument is that the War Measure has existed for the last 20 years so what necessity is there to investigate anything in regard to it. My reply to that is the same as my reply to his previous argument. The measure has up to now existed purely as part of the temporary legislation in this country. The whole approach of the Government has been that this is temporary and should never be regarded as permanent legislation. Surely, Sir, in those circumstances there is every reason for investigating a Bill of this sort before it becomes permanent legislation, particularly in view of the very strong case made out by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who pointed out the very real disadvantages there were with price control legislation, disadvantages which the hon. the Minister must admit exist and are real. That being the case, Sir, it seems unnecessary to labour the need for a select committee. But in view of the fact that hon. members opposite will insist on suggesting that our case is based on abolishing price control it has become necessary for me to deal with it at some length.

There is in my view a further reason why this should be referred to a select committee and that is the fact that in terms of this Bill it is not only the price of commodities or the price of goods that is subject to price control, but also the charges that can be made for services rendered. In other words, this Bill affects services of people, including professional people. There may be a good reason for controlling by means of a measure of this sort, services of professional people, the wages earned by artisans and so forth, but before a Bill of this sort is introduced or accepted as permanent legislation, surely it ought to be investigated by a select committee to ensure that it is desirable to have a power of this sort to control the cost of services.

The hon. member for Vereeniging made the point that if we had any complaint against the Minister arising out of the administration of this legislation, we could always raise it during the Budget debate. But, Sir, the hon. member loses sight of the fact that once this Bill becomes part of the Statute law, we cannot attack the principle; we cannot argue that that measure is no longer necessary and should be abolished. Under the Minister’s Vote, we can only deal with his administration of that measure, whereas under the present position, if it remains as a war measure, it has to be passed by this House from time to time and when the measure is submitted to this House to be passed we have the opportunity of showing that the Minister no longer requires this power and that it should not be renewed at all.

Many of the arguments advanced by hon. members on the Government benches have been based on their contention that we are asking for price control to be done away with altogether. The hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Soutpansberg made out a strong case why price control was necessary and why a measure to control prices was necessary. That is irrelevant for the purposes of this debate because we have not suggested that the War Measure which exists at present should be done away with. Our case has been that the Minister has the powers which he now seeks in this Bill; he has had them for the past 20 years. Therefore he is not taking any new powers in this Bill; he himself admitted it. So before coming to this House to ask that this Bill should be passed, the least we can expect of the hon. the Minister is to make out a case, not why price control is necessary, but why the War Measure which has existed for the last 20 years should now be made permanent legislation. This he has not done and no member on that side of the House has done that either. Nor have we had any answer to the question put by the hon. member for Constantia when he asked why the Bill was introduced in such a hurry. We have been told that the War Measure has existed for so many years and that the Government is not doing anything new. But as I have pointed out, the Government is in fact making something permanent which up to now has been regarded, on both sides of the House, as merely a temporary measure. The Government has, in fact, changed its long-existing policy. It often does that, of course, but at least it might justify its change occasionally.

The hon. member for Vereeniging dealt at some length with the Monopolies Act and he pointed out that under that Act it was necessary to move slowly, that it took time to investigate any complaints and that in the meantime prices might go up to the detriment of the consumers. I would understand that argument if we on this side of the House were asking for price control to be done away with. But how that argument can help him when the War Measure exists and will continue to exist, unless this Bill is introduced to do away with it, I cannot understand.

In conclusion I should like to reiterate what we on this side of the House contend, that none of the speakers on the Government side has up to now chosen to deal with our arguments. As the hon. member for Constantia has said we believe that provided that goods and services are in free supply, the law of supply and demand should operate. But at the same time we concede that in the circumstances which have existed under the present Government and which apparently will continue to exist, price control may be necessary. That is why we do not ask for the abolition of the War Measure. But, Sir, what we do say is that before this Government can ask this House to change legislation which they themselves have up to now regarded as temporary into permanency, we ought to have from them some explanation. Since we have not had any explanation, the least we can expect is a select committee, particularly in the interests of those people who have not had the time or the opportunity of studying the Bill and making their representations on it—I am now referring to people outside this House. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are asking that this Bill be referred to a select committee.

I must honestly admit that so far I have not been able to follow or understand the Opposition and I have listened carefully to all their speakers. I cannot understand why the arguments which hon. members of the Opposition used here to-day were not advanced by them last year or the year before or at any time during the past 20 years. For 19 years the Opposition have come to this House and have approved of this legislation each year. They have given it their blessing each year but this year, in the 20th year, they dig in their heels and refuse to cooperate. They make me think of the old song that we always used to sing when we were young: “Sewe jaar lank na haar gevry, die agste jaar laat staan sy my.”

Hon. members of the Opposition, including the last speaker, raised the question of a free economy in South Africa. I do not think that we on this side of the House believe for a moment that this measure will detract to any extent from the freedom of our economy in South Africa—the fact that we have a completely free economy based on the principle of private enterprise and the profit motive in this country. They also suggested that by means of this legislation we were trying to interfere with the law of supply and demand. This measure will certainly not interfere more with the law of supply and demand than it has already been interfered with under our present economic system. We on this side of the House have no wish to harm the law of supply and demand by means of this Bill.

I want to point out that in South Africa we pass legislation to cope with many eventualities. We prepare ourselves to meet many things in this country. The State is introducing a Bill here giving it the power to be prepared for certain eventualities. I cannot understand what the real objection of the Opposition is to giving this right to the hon. the Minister and his Department. The important point made by the Opposition is that there should be consultation. But I wonder whether they are correct in that respect. After all, this remains an enabling measure and in the application of this legislation we will in fact reach the consultative stage about which the Opposition have so much to say; we will in fact have true co-operation with commerce.

Both sides of the House admit that we need something like this Bill. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Opposition should assist us in this matter; that the Opposition should help us to give this power to the Department so that when South Africa needs it, we will be able to use it. It does not interfere with free enterprise in South Africa. Nor do we want to interfere with the law of supply and demand in this country as far as it is permitted to operate; all we ask is that this legislation should be placed on the Statute Book so that the State will be prepared and ready for all eventualities in this sphere of our life.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) is another hon. member on the Government benches who has misunderstood us and I am beginning to think that they are doing it deliberately. We have no objection to the Minister having these powers as he has at present on the basis on which they are in his hands at present. To try to impress upon hon. members opposite the real history of these war measures, I should like to give them the following information, Sir. In 1950, just after this Government came into power, they appointed a Select Committee to go into the matter of whether the war measures should remain in force. When they came into power they wanted to do away with those war measures but they decided to appoint a Select Committee. Following upon that Select Committee the regulations did remain in force. A Select Committee decided that, just as we are asking now for a Select Committee to investigate. In 1956 the War Measures Continuation Bill was introduced which extended the regulations for three years, i.e. to 1959. In 1959 the war measures were again extended and the Minister in dealing with the Bill used this phrase: “It was unnecessary and undesirable to embody them in permanent legislation.” We approved the extension of three years. Only in 1959 it was undesirable to entrench them. In 1962 the Minister, in dealing with the extension of powers in regard to currency control, said: “Events had shown, however, that enabling authority for certain control measures, especially those relating to import and export control and monetary control, price control should be permanently at the disposal of the Department concerned and steps are being taken by the Department to prepare a Bill.” We accepted what the Minister said and the powers extended for three years.

Then in 1963 he introduced the Bill dealing with currency control and other matters. We battled with him then to retain the powers on a temporary basis. We asked for two years and alternatively we asked that he should not use the extensive powers that he had unless it was for the purpose of forestalling an imminent threat to the country’s declining monetary reserves.

The hon. member for Constantia when he spoke asked for a Select Committee to investigate this matter. He also asked the Minister to tell us what were the reasons why these control measures should become a permanent part of our legislation. This Bill is so wide, if it goes through as it stands at the moment, that there is no shadow of doubt that every phrase of human activity will be watched—doctors’, dentists’, everybody’s fees are controlled under this Bill. In addition there is another aspect in regard to which I wonder whether the Minister has given it any consideration. Has it been brought to the Minister’s notice that the World Bank issued a document recently which described fixed selling prices by way of permanent legislation as an instrument of discriminatory Government action falling under the heading of “Political Risk” in the field of foreign investment? From that I would say that the World Bank does not regard this as legislation that should be used except in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. I hope that if the hon. the Minister refuses to accept our amendment then, at least, he will have the courtesy to tell us of the events which occurred and which made him change his mind since 1959 when he regarded it as being unnecessary and undesirable to embody these war measures in permanent legislation. He should tell us what events occurred to make him change his mind as is shown by this terrible Bill which we have before us now.

This legislation has already been discussed in fairly great detail. I listened attentively to the objections of hon. members opposite and their reasons why they could not support this legislation. For example, the hon. member who has just sat down mentioned the fact that in 1959 a Select Committee stated that at that stage it was not necessary or desirable to embody the war measures in a permanent law. But in my opinion the necessity to have this legislation placed on the Statute Book does exist at the present time. My most important reason for saying this is that during the past 20 years, these measures—temporary measures—have been used to prevent the public from being exploited, particularly in a country like South Africa, a country of fluctuating climatic conditions, where production can be influenced by circumstances, circumstances like droughts and so forth. Under these conditions shortages may be experienced on our markets from time to time. This was the case recently in regard to lucerne. It was found that there was such a shortage of this product that it was virtually unobtainable. The lucerne that was available was bought up by certain groups. These groups were then able to exploit the public in that they were able to demand whatever price they liked for their lucerne.

In this connection it has been said that we have the machinery of the Monopolies Act, but if in terms of the Monopolies Act an investigation was to be made into the position in regard to lucerne which I have just mentioned, all the farm animals would die before that investigation was completed. In the meantime, those people could continue to make their exorbitant profits. With this in mind I say that measures must be adopted to combat conditions that may arise from time to time. We have such measures in the form of these war measures. I say that because we have used these war measures for 20 years, and because we realize that certain of their provisions are necessary, we can no longer regard these provisions as being of a temporary nature. We must apply them to circumstances that will continue to exist in the future. For this reason the right thing to do is to place a law on the Statute Book giving those powers to the hon. the Minister.

It must be noticed that no extra powers are being given to the hon. the Minister over and above those he already has. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister already has all these powers. The previous speaker has said that these powers that are being asked for are very wide and almost unlimited. That is true, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the hon. the Minister has already had these powers for the past 20 years. And what is more, these powers have not been misused. In those circumstances I cannot understand why hon. members opposite are afraid that these powers will be misused in the future.

The argument of a free economy has also been advanced. It is said that the law of supply and demand must not be interfered with. But that law is not being detrimentally affected by this legislation and no additional powers are being asked for. What is being asked for already exists. A fact which is particularly important is that powers are needed to protect the public against exploitation. That is necessary. Another problem is the problem of the formation of groups. It often happens that certain groups amalgamate in order to force the small man out of the trade. These groups then succeed in obtaining an article in short supply and they control its distribution. This measure is also needed in order to prevent this sort of thing. The distribution must be controlled in such a way that the public are not exploited.

No, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this legislation is necessary. I have heard no acceptable reason put forward by the Opposition as to why these powers should not be given to the hon. the Minister. The Opposition have asked that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee but in my opinion no logical reason has been given as to why this legislation should be delayed. We are all acquainted with these measures. All of us have had experience of the practical functioning of the old war measures and we know that the hon. the Minister has not misused these powers. All we are asking for here is a perpetuation of these powers and for their conversion into a permanent measure. We agree on the necessity of these measures. But we cannot go on forever with temporary measures; we have to convert them into permanent legislation on the Statute Book.

For these reasons we on this side fully support this legislation.

The hon. member who has just sat down has, I wish to say with great respect, completely misconceived the attitude of this side of the House. He quoted certain circumstances and on the basis of that he said that it was necessary for the Government to have these powers. However, the hon. member should know that in terms of the law as it stands to-day, the regulations under the war measures in other words, the Government has such powers. That being so, it is not, to my mind, a matter for urgency that this Bill should be rushed through this House with unseemly haste. The case of this side of the House is this: Here is a matter of very great importance. The original war measures were enacted in the early part of World War II. The regulations enacted under those measures were amended from time to time and we have had assurances from the hon. the Minister as well as from his predecessors that it was the policy of the Government to seek to do away with these emergency powers as far as that was necessary. Now the hon. the Minister is coming to us and is, in effect, saying that, in his view, there will be a state of permanent emergency in South Africa requiring a piece of legislation of this nature. That is, in effect, the case which the hon. the Minister is putting up.

This then is our plea. The objection to this measure being rushed through is, I believe, very real. I hope, consequently, that the hon. the Minister will heed the pleas of this side of the House. Mention was made of this measure for the first time only a few days ago. As a matter of fact, it was only on 28 January that this House gave leave for the introduction of this measure. Accordingly, it appeared on the Order Paper for the first time on 29 January. Obviously it has been impossible for interested bodies, whether they are representative of the consumers, producers or merchants, to give proper attention to the provisions of this measure, or to make suggestions with regard to it in order to make of it a more effective measure, or to make representations if they so wished to the effect that certain of its provisions are unnecessary.

Sir, I say that it is one of the tenets of democracy that an opportunity should be given to the other side to make itself heard. Audi alteram partem is the old Roman maxim. The position is quite clear: the very foundation of democracy is government by consent. Now, if the Government wants to act in accord with that principle, then this measure should be referred to a select committee where an opportunity will be given to all the interests involved to make representations. There will then also be a far greater opportunity for both sides of this House to consider the provisions of this measure in the quiet of a select committee room. There it will be necessary to come to a decision as to whether it is necessary to have this measure to replace the war measures. If an opportunity to do that is created, then it would be possible to propose a really effective measure instead of having a piece of rushed legislation. Here I wish to say that if the hon. the Minister does not accept our amendment, he will be guilty of rushing legislation through this House unnecessarily because it is clear that there can be no abuse while the present regulations are in force. At the present time the public is fully protected and I submit that the public will be better protected in future if an opportunity is given for a close study to be made of this Bill and particularly if an opportunity is given to the trade unions, producers’ organizations, chambers of commerce, and others to study the Bill carefully and to make recommendations. They are the experts in this field.

I can honestly say to the hon. the Minister that I have no doubt that if legislation is found to be necessary, and probably will be found to be necessary, then we can thrash out a really effective measure with the consent of all interested parties. That will then be government by consent.

In the circumstances I hope the hon. the Minister is going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) opened this debate by making a personal attack on me. He is not in the House now but I want to say that I am very sorry that he has seen fit to make that attack upon me. Remarks such as those that he has made, besides not being true, do not redound to the credit of the hon. member. This sort of thing takes us no further; it merely makes things more difficult. I do not know whether the hon. member was aware of the fact that because his arguments were very weak he tried to ascribe sinister motives to me as far as the introduction of this measure was concerned.

The most important point of the speech of the hon. member was his allegation that I believed that the State should control everything to an increasing extent. That is absolute nonsense. I do not want to deal with it any further except to say that since the start of my term as Minister I have stated in this House every year—and I want to repeat it again now, particularly with a view to the false propaganda that may be made both here and abroad on the grounds of the false accusations of the hon. member—that I am in favour of free enterprise in our economy. That is what I advocated in my capacity as an ordinary Member of Parliament and since that time I have on every occasion, both here in the House and outside, always advocated the maintenance of free enterprise and the profit motive in our economy. No hon. member opposite can point a finger at the Government and say that we are only paying lip service to the matter—in other words, that we have not applied the principle of free enterprise in our economy.

That is why arguments like those of the hon. member are simply intended to cover their own weakness and to harm South Africa’s name and her economy. Thanks to the guidance of this Government our South African economy is to-day considered by many countries to be one of the most free economies in the whole world.

The hon. member also asked why we were introducing this legislation in such haste. He wanted to know why we had not warned them of our intentions in this regard. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) spoke about this “revolutionary legislation”. “Why no consultation?” we were asked. The fact remains that in 1962 we gave notice of our intention to introduce this legislation. In 1962 my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, said that those war measures that could not be abolished would be embodied in legislation. And so this measure is not something new. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), and others spoke as though we had come forward with a revolutionary and completely new idea and said that for that reason we should have had consultation.

That is nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense …

If you say that that is what I said, you are talking nonsense.

But did the hon. member for Springs not also say that we should have had consultation? The fact remains that this is nothing new. I agree that if we had come along here with a completely new idea, with a completely new law with new principles, then it would perhaps …

Is it not a new principle that this new measure is now going to be placed on the Statute Book permanently?

I am still coming to that. Hon. members opposite adopted the attitude that we were introducing new and revolutionary legislation. But I say that this legislation contains nothing new or revolutionary. Perhaps its form does, but as far as its content is concerned there is nothing new. These provisions have stood for the past 20 years in the form of regulations on our Statute Book. Where then is the “completely new thing”? If we had come forward with a completely new thing, it would have been our duty to consult the Opposition and various other interests. But all that has happened here has been that the war regulations have been embodied in legislation because we feel that it is better to have them in the form of law. Where then does the revolution come in?

Hon. members also adopted the attitude that because this legislation has now been introduced, we will have to contend with price control for all time. But that statement is not true either. Indeed I made it very clear that all that was envisaged by this legislation was that the Minister would be given the power to apply price control if and when he considered such a step to be necessary. In other words, this is merely enabling legislation. I also said during my second-reading speech that there would be times when in spite of this legislation there would be no price control. But hon. members have interpreted this legislation as meaning that we will have permanent price control. As I have said, that is not true. All that is envisaged is that the Minister will have the right to impose price control if circumstances arise which justify the taking of such a step. To my mind the attitude of those hon. members is very strange. The Government is always being asked to take action and do certain things. If things go wrong in the economic sphere, we are blamed and it is said that we are not doing what we should do. “Too little, too late”, is what is said. We hear that said so often. But on the other hand, as soon as we want to take action, no matter what our motives are, we are accused and, moreover, in an unfriendly way, like the way in which my hon. friend the hon. member for Constantia accused us again to-day.

As far as the public generally are concerned, we are not criticized for instituting and applying price control but for not having done so. In other words, the public expects the Government to take action when exploitation must be combated.

And it has that power at present.

I wanted to deal with this aspect of the matter later but let me say at this stage that it appears to me that there is great confusion in the minds of hon. members of the Opposition. The last few hon. members who spoke on that side tried to gloss over what was said by the hon. member for Constantia. They tried to tell this House that they were not opposed to price control as such but only to the legislation in that regard. The hon. member for Constantia also alleged the same thing but all his arguments were aimed at price control as such. I made a note of all his arguments. When one analyses them one sees that 80 per cent of them are opposed to price control as such. Other hon. members again said that they were not opposed to price control as such. What they were opposed to was legislation on price control!

Mention has also been made of “consultation”. I want to ask: With whom and how must we consult? About what must we consult? I think that hon. members will agree with me that there is only one thing on which we can have consultation and that is the question of whether we should have price control or not. But as far as I am concerned I am not prepared to have any consultation in that regard. I am not prepared to do so because, to my mind, the important principle is that price control is necessary in South Africa. Certain of my hon. friends opposite hold certain theoretical points of view in regard to free trade with the outside world, free competition within this country and so forth. But those are purely theoretical, academic and imaginary ideas which cannot work in any country in the world in this modern age. It is very easy to sit opposite us and to talk about the “free play of competition within and outside of the country”. That we can forget about. There is no longer any such thing as free competition between countries; and there can no longer be any such thing as free competition between competitive forces within a country. These are purely theoretical and imaginary ideas that no longer exist in our modern economic life. They simply cannot exist at a time when groups are being formed, when we have price fixing and other mighty factors that militate against the individual and against the consumer.

Let me tell hon. members that it is also our task to look after the consumer, to ensure that he is not exploited by people who are stronger than he is and against whom he cannot protect himself. Does the hon. member for Constantia really think that we should do away with price control? Should we, for example, do away with control over the price of sugar, or over the price of coal or of arms and ammunition—and that in a country where sudden surpluses and sudden shortages can arise? What would the Capetonians say if something went wrong with the transport system up North as a result of which there was a great coal shortage in Cape Town which in its turn gave rise to price increases? Would they be pleased if that happened? What was the position some months ago when we were inundated with demands for arms and ammunition and the prices of these articles rose sky-high? We received requests from people from all over the country asking that prices be controlled. Do hon. members know what is going on in certain parts of the country? Do they know that there are parts of our country where there is very little competition and where certain dealers absolutely exploit the public, a public which cannot protect itself? Hon. members must know that these circumstances arise. We are not merely discussing general ideas on price control. We are dealing with the actual protection of the public at a small place, perhaps at some remote place on the platteland. It is the Government’s responsibility to protect the public and that is why we are asking for these powers.

The hon. member for Constantia asked me whether I expected great shortages to arise in the future and whether that was the main reason why we were asking for these powers. No, that is not the case. These war measures and regulations are not being transformed into permanent legislation because we want greater powers or because we anticipate greater shortages. That is not the position. But we are living in an age when conditions can sometimes become very difficult. Hon. members themselves have already complained about the recent rise in prices and we do not know when prices may rise again. We do not know what can happen. We are at present experiencing a phase that can be described as a period of economic prosperity, as a period of growth. Hon. members opposite know that one of the greatest problems to-day in the management of affairs in the economic sphere is to equate economic growth with stable prices. There is a struggle between growth and inflation. This is the position throughout the world. This is something that is experienced in every country. When a country experiences economic growth it always experiences the problem of rising prices.

Are the present powers and provisions in any way ineffective?

I am coming to that. At the moment I am still replying to the arguments of the hon. member for Constantia. I say therefore that we want these powers because we are at present experiencing a period of growth. In a period of growth and prosperity there is always the danger that prices may rise. This is a problem that is experienced throughout the economic life of the world to-day. That is why we also anticipate having to cope with similar problems during the present period of growth in our country. That is the reason why we must retain price control.

Let me reply to the question of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) by asking: What difference does it make whether the prices of a dealer are fixed by regulation or in terms of a law? There is no difference. It is a bad thing to allow a war regulation to continue to exist as a regulation 20 years after the war and not to embody it in legislation. This is particularly true in regard to enabling regulations.

The hon. member for Springs and others referred to the legislation dealing with the control of monopolies. In this connection I have already made it quite clear that the legislation against monopolies is not intended to combat developments such as this in our economic life. That legislation is too time-consuming for that. If I arrive at De Aar or Groblersdal and I find that there is a dealer there who is exploiting the public, should I apply the provisions of the Monopolies Act to that individual dealer? Must months and years pass before any decision can be arrived at? That Act is not intended to cover matters of this nature.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) referred to the disadvantages and the dangers of price control. That is true. There are disadvantages and dangers connected with price control as with all forms of control. That is why it is our policy to apply price control as sensibly and as benignly as possible and also as seldom as possible. There are disadvantages and dangers and risks connected with it but this is also the case in regard to all legislation passed by this House. Because this is so, must we shrink away from passing all legislation? I would rather take the risk of having to cope with any disadvantages and dangers that may arise from price control when I apply it sympathetically than face the future without those powers and leave the consumer to the fate that others may mete out to him.

The last argument that was raised here was whether we did not have confidence in the economy of the country. Mr. Speaker, if we did not have confidence in the economic development of our country we would not even need price control because we would then believe in depression and prices would fall of their own accord. But because we have confidence in the future of our country and because we believe that a tremendous period of growth lies ahead of us, a development that is often accompanied by rising prices, as I have said, we need this legislation. We have been asked whether we will be prepared to agree that the Bill be referred to a select committee as provided for in the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia. I am sorry but I cannot accept that amendment. This is where we differ fundamentally from the Opposition. I cannot agree with the argument that has been raised by the hon. members opposite that we are introducing a completely new principle here—“revolutionary” was the word used—and that price control is really a bad thing. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Minister be prepared to renew this legislation every year?

Can the hon. the Minister tell the House how the provisions of this measure will affect the fees of professional people such as doctors and dentists?

Order! Those questions can be answered in the Committee Stage.