Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House for next week, I wish to point out that the reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill will be delivered on Monday, 24 August. On the same day the Prime Minister’s Vote will come up for discussion. On Thursday, 27 August, the Manpower Vote will be discussed, to be followed by the Finance Vote. If time allows the House will then proceed to deal with the Order Paper.

With a view to informing hon. members at an earlier stage of the programme for the following week, the Leader of the House will in future announce the business of the House on Wednesdays.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the end of the stages of this Bill. This is the Third Reading, and the Bill, as we have said before, is in a sense a new charter for our transport services in South Africa. It consolidates and in some ways updates existing legislation relating to transport services. For the most part it is a constructive measure.

Last night I dealt with our very deep-rooted objection to the provision gagging the Press from reporting on the activities of the Railway Police. At this stage we sustain that objection and I want to repeat that I think it is a very great pity indeed that the hon. the Minister allowed such a provision to be included in a Bill of this kind. It is a pity, too, that the hon. the Minister seeks such powers in legislation without first discussing this particular aspect with the Newspaper Press Union. It is also a great pity that the hon. the Minister should come with a clause of this nature without awaiting the final report of the Steyn Commission on matters relating to reporting of police and other activities.

We in the Opposition are totally opposed to the principle of dealing with the Press in this manner and depriving the public of the right to know, and we expressed our opposition very strongly during the Committee Stage. When I say, “we in the Opposition”, it means, of course, that we in the official Opposition are opposed to this matter. The other Opposition party in this House has indicated no concern at all in regard to the situation. The hon. member for Umhlanga last night actually indicated the enthusiasm of his party for the Press gag clause. I do not want to go much further into that, except to say that the hon. member for Umhlanga in an emotional speech made certain very strong allegations last night and levelled accusations at newspapers, in particular at The Natal Mercury. He was commended by the hon. the Minister for his speech and also for his courage. The hon. member for Umhlanga said he would be prepared to make the same allegations and accusations outside of this House. Sir, if he has the courage that was attributed to him by the hon. the Minister, I am quite sure that he will in fact make those allegations outside of this House and I hope he will do so at the first possible opportunity.

With that very strong reservation in regard to the provision relating to the publication by the Press and the media of the activities of the Railway Police, we look upon the rest of the Bill, as I have said, as a constructive Bill. It is a wide and all-embracing Bill relating to transport services, its general impact is good, and for that reason we will support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, with a rapidly moving activity such as transport it is essential that adjustments be made to the legislation from time to time. It seems as if at this stage the official Opposition are obsessed with one clause of this Bill, namely clause 45, and are forgetting what the rest of the legislation means for South Africa and also for Southern Africa. [Interjections.] Now they are already shouting and I have not even begun yet.

This Bill contains clear changes of course for the South African Transport Services to meet the demands and requirements of the ’eighties. I want to dwell briefly on what those claims are and remind the official Opposition what the transport sector can involve. The Bill provides that the objectives and strategies for transport in South Africa may in fact be carried into effect by the Department of Transport Affairs. The functions of transport are being optimally covered in the Bill at this stage. In particular the social, constitutional and strategic responsibilities of transport are being very clearly outlined. Whereas ideologies in Southern Africa, and emotional slogans by some of our “friends” north of the Limpopo, have resulted in countries moving further from each other, I can state that the transport system, and the railway system in particular, has made up the system of the arteries which have linked these countries together. The transport services, and its railway lines in particular, as infrastructure, may be regarded as the main artery of the South African transport network. There is evidence for this, and I just wish to quote two examples. The first is that South Africa utilizes its transport system, in this instance chiefly the rail transport system, four times more effectively than the transport system, chiefly the rail transport system, north of the R.S.A. is utilized. The Tanzam Railway line, which has already become a well-known railway line, the operation of which has become a pain in the neck, is being held up as an example of how chaotic things can get by people who lecture on transport economy.

The second example I wish to quote is that south of the equator there are basically 15 commercial ports, seven of which belong to South Africa. The other eight operate at 20% to 40% of their capacity, due to technical and other operating problems. Therefore it is not only South Africa that depends on its efficient transport system for economic prosperity, but Southern Africa as well. Due to obstinacy, wilfulness or for some other inexplicable reason, Zambia is trying to set artificial boundaries for the transport system. It preferred transport routes to the north. I call those routes constipated routes, or arteries experiencing pains which are largely the result of poor technical maintenance and management. In Zambia it is no longer a question of how much a loaf of bread or a plate of maize costs. Those days are past. The issue in Zambia nowadays is: What is available to eat? This is what happens when there is interference with the free operation of a transportation system. The countries of Southern Africa, excluding South Africa, who nowadays call themselves the “South African Development Co-ordination Conference”, meet regularly to conduct discussions on how to make themselves more independent of South Africa, particularly the transportation system of South Africa. These countries have discovered that it is a painful process, and as far as I am concerned it will continue to be for them an economic chimera. This ideological interference in the transportation system and, as I have already said, the obstinancy which sometimes accompanies it, can only lead to a catastrophe north of the Limpopo River. On a number of occasions the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport have extended the hand of friendship and of aid, too, to these countries, but thus far, the acceptance of that aid has only been accompanied by criticism. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that I am very pleased that despite all the criticism, an effort is still being made to give assistance to these people. Those people have already come back on a number of occasions and requested assistance from the South African Transport Services, or the Railways, as they used to be known. However, they do not want this publicized. No. They come to the backdoor in the night asking for help.

I am obliged that the Bill at present under discussion provides that the S.A. Transport Services will be able to give assistance to these countries to a greater extent in future when it is requested. Before the Opposition again starts making a fuss, I just want to say that that assistance should be granted at economic tariffs. I refer hon. members to clause 7. They must not be obsessed with clause 45 but should also consider clause 7, where it is specifically spelt out what the S.A. Transport Services can do and on what conditions. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that he has formulated that provision clearly and then reinserted it, and I shall state why I am pleased. At present Governments in countries overseas—and I am not going to mention the figures for underdeveloped countries, but only those of highly developed countries—pay large sums of money to balance the budgets of railway systems. Approximately R6 milliard per annum are paid for the German railways, R1 milliard per annum for the British railways, R2,25 milliard per annum for the French railways and R2,1 milliard per annum for the Japanese railways. We can therefore be very gratified that clause 7 spells out very clearly that business principles will continue to be the overall strategy in the S.A. Transport Services.

I also wish to take this occasion to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to consider once again, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, whether the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission could not be reconsidered so that more aid could be given to the S.A. Transport Services. I ask this particularly so that the business principles spelt out so clearly in this legislation may be followed. I take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall be supporting the Third Reading of this measure. As the hon. member for Berea said, this legislation is virtually a new charter for the old South African Railways and Harbours which, in the future, will have a new name, the South African Transport Services. As we have seen, as the Bill has passed through its various stages there have been quite a number of improvements to the existing legislation, although one must admit that the vast majority of the provisions are exactly the same as in the existing Act. I should just like to remind hon. members that there has been an indication of change taking place in the hearts and minds of Government members, and I say this in the light of the fact that certain references to the word “Black” are being removed. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his party on seeing the wisdom of this, because I definitely think that this is an improvement.

The hon. member for Berea spoke at some length about clause 45, which he calls the “press-gag” clause. In so doing, he criticized my colleague the hon. member for Umhlanga, who unfortunately cannot be here this morning. I want to make it quite clear, however, that we are not supporting a “press-gag” clause. We are supporting a security measure. I think that most South Africans realize today that there have been numerous attempts, by terrorist groups, to sabotage the South African Railways. If one therefore understands and appreciates the important role that the Railways in South Africa plays in transporting hundreds of thousands of people every day, one must realize that it is extremely important for the Railways to be protected so that no disaster overtakes it as a result of terrorist acts, probably causing considerable loss of life in the process. We therefore believe that we are acting in the public interest in supporting this measure, because it is a measure that has been found necessary in order to maintain law and order in South Africa. What surprises me—yet, on thinking about it, it does not really surprise me that much—is why the hon. member for Berea did not see fit to comment on the fact that about a year or so ago the hon. member for Yeoville supported a similar measure in the armaments legislation. That is, however, the kind of duplicity we get from the official Opposition.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am pleased that he saw fit to include, during the Committee Stage, a provision requiring the setting up of a tender board. I think it was the hon. member for Berea, in that debate, who said that provision should perhaps have been included in clause 5 and not clause 4, but I am sure the hon. the Minister could correct that in due course.

Finally I want to refer the hon. the Minister back to clause 10 which concerns the construction of railways, harbours and harbour works. I do not think I made my point in this connection very clear in the Committee Stage. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that this clause concerns what should happen in the event of the Railways wanting to construct or acquire a new harbour or railway line. Subsection (1) provides—

I assume it means by the South African Transport Services—

We all understand that before the S.A. Transport Services can construct or acquire a harbour or a railway line, an Act of Parliament must be passed, but as the hon. the Minister knows, whenever the construction of a new railway is proposed, a Bill comes before Parliament and, accompanying it, there is a report from what is now to be called the S.A. Transport Services Board. In the Bill this is covered by subsection (2) which provides—

This means that, regardless of who wants to construct the railway line, the S.A. Trans port Services Board must examine the proposal so as to ensure that it does not conflict with any existing railway line we have in South Africa. The same is true of harbours. This is a wise step. Therefore every proposal for the construction of a new harbour or railway, whether by the S.A. Transport Services or by a private individual, has to be considered by the S.A. Transport Services Board. The point I want to make is that this should also apply in the event of any proposal that the S.A. Transport Services should acquire an existing railway that was built by private enterprise years ago. I will concede that the original proposal to construct the railway would have had to be examined by the S.A. Transport Services Board—let us assume that the approval of Parliament and of the board was obtained for the construction of the railway—but at some day in the future the proposal may be put forward that the S.A. Transport Services should purchase or acquire that railway. With a view to that, I believe this should have been amended to read as follows—

I say this because the acquisition of such a line may not be in the best interests of, let us say, the S.A. Transport Services. With these reservations, we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to what has again been said about clause 45 I do not wish to repeat what I said last night, but just wish to say that there is one thing that leaves me speechless. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about security measures. Every time the Press reacts so violently against a security measure, I ask myself whether people can be so stupid, because that only confirms me in my belief that there is something that those people are seeking to do. I then say that this kind of provision ought to be included in every Act that has to do with security. I find the reaction of the Press to a security measure simply amazing.

While we all say that we want Press freedom, we are saddled with people who are unaquainted with the problems of our country. One cannot give them carte blanche to write what they like and cause disasters in the country. The reaction of the Press to such a clause in my view constitutes convincing evidence that this is the right clause. The sooner the Press refrains from agitating against security measures in this country, the better it will be for them. Thus far I have been very sympathetically inclined towards them. I shall leave clause 45 at that.

The hon. member for Berea has said on three occasions that this is constructive legislation, and I want to thank him for that. He and I will get along well. We differ about one clause only, but that I shall forgive him.

Hon. members of the NRP have by their actions shown me that they would like to make the S.A. Railways a good business organization. I appreciate that.

†The hon. member referred again to the new railway line and the provisions for investigation by the Railway Board. We will go into the hon. member’s proposals.

As has been said, this is a constructive Bill, but I will ask our legal advisers and our officials to discuss this meanwhile to see whether we can iron out the hon. member’s problems and come with an amendment next year.

*The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said that the railways in South Africa operated four times more efficiently than the railway network in the countries to the north of us. He also referred to the prosperity in South Africa in comparison with the prosperity in other countries. It is tragic to think that in cases where certain countries donated groundnuts and maize to an African country, those products lay rotting in the harbour because the infrastructure to transport that food to the interior of that African country was lacking. The UN can donate food; the problem is how to get that food to the point of consumption. The food is consumed at the harbour and does not get to the hungry people in the interior. The recommendations of the Franzsen Commission are being given urgent attention at present, because with our present method of subsidization it is becoming a non-paying proposition. The hon. the Minister of Finance and I will jointly put proposals to the Cabinet.

I thank all speakers in this House for the support they have given the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, last night I was giving a summary of the various arguments advanced during the discussion of this Bill. I should like to dwell on a few additional points raised here by certain hon. members.

Right at the outset I want to repeat something I said last night, viz. that I did not say during the censure debate or during any other debate conducted in this House that there was no shortage of nurses. I raise this point again for a specific reason, viz. that the day after I participated in the censure debate, a front page report appeared in The Cape Times stating that I had supposedly said: “There is no serious shortage of nurses; there are only too many White beds.” I wrote to the reporter concerned and pointed out to him that I had never said that and also attached my Hansard, but in spite of that no correction has been forthcoming. On the following day the same report appeared in newspapers throughout the country and later in the Sunday Times as well. I am used to this kind of reporting, but I just wish to state for the sake of the record in this House that I never said that there was not a shortage of nurses.

You asked a rhetorical question.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Bryanston now; I am speaking to intelligent people in this House.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Parktown that I only referred to that when I asked him whether it constituted a crisis if 90% of the posts in the Cape were occupied. The hon. member then asked me what the position was in the Transvaal. I replied that I would deal later with the position in the Transvaal, and I did speak about that later. I again asked the hon. member whether occupation of 90% of the posts constituted a crisis. That is all I said. I added that I would deal with nursing affairs on the occasion of the discussion of my vote. I refrain from any comment to the newspapers.

I should like to set this straight because the hon. member for Hillbrow saw fit to refer twice in the course of his speech to the fact that I had said that there was no shortage of nurses. After all, the hon. member could have read my Hansard. He added that on the occasion of this Second Reading debate I had said that there was a shortage of nurses; how did I now wish to extend their services? Not even on the occasion of this Second Reading debate did I refer to a shortage of nurses. I said that there was a shortage of medical practitioners and pharmacists and that that was the specific reason why we should now legalize the work of our nurses in this regard so that they can do certain things which formerly were only entrusted to a medical practitioner or pharmacist.

But the purport of your words was that there was not …

I do not care what the purport of my words was. A reporter reporting the proceedings here must report what I said and not ascribe to me something that he himself has thought up. I have experience of this kind of reporting and I am tired of it. Accordingly I am addressing myself to this House in order to set the matter straight. I shall rectify such matters in this House and I have done so now. If the hon. member for Hillbrow doubts my word, he can go and read my Hansard and see whether it is so.

Are the posts in the Transvaal …

The hon. member for Hillbrow must not make noises now.

A report appeared in The Cape Times today …

I think I have dealt with most of the cases raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow was the first hon. member of the Opposition to raise the point that we should not have the word “consultation” but that we should rather have the word “agreement”. I am afraid that I cannot accept this suggestion. No legislation provides that any body, association or council shall be the determining body or factor when one is dealing with legislation. How can we first have agreement? What will happen if, for instance, this board does not come to an agreement with me as the Minister or with the Director-General? We shall then not be able to proceed with any ordinary planning at all or with whatever it is one wishes to proceed with. However, one can have consultation. As the responsible Minister I have had consultation with the board on a number of occasions and I have also had consultation with the association. This has happened on numerous occasions. We do not simply ride roughshod over their arguments if we find those arguments to be reasonable. We try to point out to them, as I shall indicate shortly, that there are times when they are wrong and that we have to carry on and do things in a certain way. However, I cannot allow the word “agreement” to be substituted for the word “consultation”. I just want to say in passing that the hon. member for Parktown also made this suggestion. I shall deal with this matter again in a moment.

*The hon. member for Middelburg apologized for not being able to be present this morning. I appreciate his support and the fact that he welcomes the measure. He put in a nutshell the reason why the different amendments are being effected. He also referred to the issue of proper relations. I think the hon. member for Parktown also raised this matter. It is of the utmost importance. I pointed out last night that it is no new principle that a Minister includes certain provisos in an Act when he has to give his approval to something. The issue here is the constitution of an association. Last night I drew attention to the various laws. I referred to the 1944 legislation when the association was established, and also to the 1957 legislation when the whole constitution was prescribed by law. In the 1978 legislation we got away from that but we still retained the right in that the Minister approved the regulations on the recommendation of the association. What we have here, then, is a period of transition—1944, 1957 and 1978—in which certain changes are taking place in an association. There is the issue of the acceptance of whoever may belong to the association. We now also have a provision that only registered practising nurses may take part in the voting. If we were to find that after a year or six months had elapsed they again came together and decided that they wanted to change things and that all enrolled nurses should again be included, or even if they were to decide that they did not want Black or Brown or White nurses—whatever the group may be—in the association, and they succeeded in amending their constitution by majority vote, then I as the Minister ought surely to have the right to provide that the existing legislation be tested for a number of years. I do not contend that that proviso should be retained forever. There is no Act in existence which is not amended from time to time. However, I am not prepared to forego that proviso. I do believe that it will allow calm, fairness and reasonableness to prevail for a number of years. It will also create the opportunity for these people to become accustomed to one another without the feeling occurring that one poses a threat to another, so that they may suddenly decide to change the constitution. Nor is the question of relations merely a matter of relations between White and Black, but also about relations among the various groups in the nursing profession, groups whose status in the profession differ from one another.

†I come now to the hon. member for South Coast. I should like to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I found it particularly interesting when he referred to his predecessors, men such as Mr. Douglas Mitchell and others. He also referred to the previous member for South Coast, a man whom he beat in the last election, Mr. Mias van der Westhuyzen, who, I believe, was one of the most respected members during his time in this House. I do not believe he had any enemies here. I also believe he did much for his constituency during his term of office as MP. I was very impressed with the fact that the hon. member also referred to him.

The hon. member for South Coast also referred to the question of a retired nurse practising in an emergency situation. The requirement for practising as a nurse is that she should be registered with the S.A. Nursing Council. Membership of the S.A. Nursing Association alone is not sufficient. Once a nurse is registered with the S.A. Nursing Council she automatically also becomes a member of the S.A. Nursing Association. I do not believe, however, that it could cause any problem if a retired nurse should act in an emergency situation of the kind referred to by the hon. member, such as a train accident, a flood or any similar occurrence. If a retired nurse should then voluntarily offer her services, it could not cause any real problem, particularly if payment is not received in return. Once a nurse accepts payment for the services she performs, she must obviously be registered with the council. She then has to be a member of the association as well.

But the Act lays down what they may or may not do.

I do not believe that comes into it at all.

*I do not think the hon. member for Durban Point was here when we discussed these matters yesterday evening.

I at least studied the Bill.

What the Act deals with is quite different from what applies when nurses should act in an emergency situation. What the hon. member for South Coast raised was the question of registration, and not the functions nurses perform, such as the dispensing of medicine or the diagnosing of illnesses, etc., which actually comprised the main part of the discussion here. The hon. member also said nurses were responsible people and should be treated as such. I cannot agree with him more. Nurses have been brought into the health team over the past few years. Nurses, doctors, pharmacists and a variety of other people have been brought into the health team over the past few years. This is a concept which we are trying to put forward instead of that of the isolated nurse or doctor or pharmacist in an isolated area. My dealings with the board and the association have all been aimed at giving nurses the necessary status as part of the health team. Hon. members can be assured that during my term as Minister they will be given every opportunity and will also be recognized as a very responsible part of our health set-up.

*The hon. member for Losberg delivered his maiden speech, too, and I should like to congratulate him on it. He also quoted a fine poem on handicapped people. I think that the hon. member for Parktown, too, made a special point of congratulating him on his speech.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to clause 1 of the Bill and put a question which was later repeated by the hon. member for Berea. They wanted to know who the people were to whom reference is made in that clause, where they might come from and what exactly the RSA comprises. The Republic of South Africa is the area excluding the independent Black States and the self-governing Black States.

Do they not form part of the Republic of South Africa?

It is laid down as such in the Act in question. It is not from today that this has been the case. I have not done anything new. This was laid down as long ago as 1971 in the Act relating to the national States. It was laid down there that the moment a Black State obtains self-government, it must regulate its own health affairs and when that happens, nursing falls under its jurisdiction. Would it make sense for the S.A. Nursing Association to be able to prescribe to the government of kwaZulu what it should do with its nurses and what conditions it should set, whereas they must have their own association? However, I shall come back to the argument of that hon. member later. This is not the place and time to conduct discussions about kwaZulu. The chief of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi, will discuss matters there with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the Minister of Health in his own way. If my colleague approves, I shall speak to them, as I spoke to them last time, but this is not the time or place to come and discuss debates concerning the government of kwaZulu. Nor do I believe that the hon. member is the spokesman for kwaZulu here. There is another way to discuss matters with kwaZulu. I shall come to that again later because I found the hon. member’s statement interesting. The proposed subsection 1(a) reads as follows—

I have now defined what is regarded as the Republic. It is very clearly stated in the Nursing Act, 1978. If any nurse, whether she be Black or White, or English, Russian or whatever, comes to work within the territory known as the Republic of South Africa—the hon. member for Berea referred to the fact that they alternate, working sometimes in Natal and then in kwaZulu—then she must register with the council and with the Nursing Association if she wishes to work for remuneration. For example, she may come from kwaZulu to work in the Republic of South Africa, as I have defined it. Surely everyone knows what kwaZulu is and what the Republic of South Africa is. As soon as they come to work in the Republic of South Africa they have to register, and not only register; they then also fall under the indemnity of the Nursing Association. They then fall under the codes established there. If a South African nurse were to go and work in kwaZulu, the Ciskei or any of those places, they would also have to register there under the regulations of that specific association. The S.A. Nursing Association cannot afford them protection if they go to work in a different country. I think I have now put this clearly.

The hon. member for Parktown put a few pathetic questions to me about clause 1(b) to which I am not going to reply now. If one accepts the explanation I have just given hon. members, then the hon. member ought to see how the situation will work. Because the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the matter, I have already pointed out that it will only be possible to change the constitution with the approval of the Minister, and I have given the reasons for that. It is my opinion that this should result in peace and calm prevailing there.

†The hon. member also asked the question about whether a nurse who has trained for two years will now be able to carry out these functions as prescribed. It is very clearly stated in the proposed subsection (1)(b) that it may be “no person, other than a registered nurse”. A registered nurse is a nurse with four years’ training, not two years’ training.

Two years extra.

Yes, but she must be registered, in other words, she must have had four years of training before being able to exercise her full rights in terms of the provisions of this legislation. Therefore it cannot be just anyone. It must be a person who has been properly trained. Then, too, it is very clearly prescribed that it must be a person designated by the Director-General or by someone else lower down the line to whom he delegates the power. Hon. members can be very sure that the officials concerned with these matters will not designate just anyone to perform these tasks.

Concerning the issue of indemnity, the hon. member asked whether there was any improvement in this regard in comparison with the old system. The importance of this situation is that as soon as the association has given its blessing to an action such as this … This is one of the reasons why they must fall under the Nursing Act and not under the other Acts. As soon as they recognize that and it falls under their legislation, it is automatically an employer/ employee situation, and the nurse is then granted the indemnity. We were concerned —and our legal advice was also to this effect—because to this day there are nurses who perform certain tasks which, in the case of difficulties arising, are not covered by an indemnity because they are tasks falling outside the ambit of the Nursing Act. They are now rectifying this.

Perhaps I should also add something in connection with the functions. There is a very big difference between the functions of the council and those of the association. The council is concerned with functions of salaries, conditions of service, and so, and negotiates with the Government. As I said earlier, we cannot permit the Nursing Association to negotiate with kwaZulu in connection with nurses working in kwaZulu, because that would cause chaos. This applies to other States as well. The hon. member said that kwaZulu is not prepared to establish a nursing association, but it is interesting to note that they have already established one. A short time ago the chairwoman of the Nursing Association of kwaZulu was in the Ciskei, where a meeting of the chairwomen of the various nursing associations was held. The hon. member did not realize that I am also abreast of affairs as far as that is concerned.

The functions of the council are, inter alia, to exercise discipline and to draw up syllabi. The council differs from the Nursing Association in that the self-governing States and even the independent States have entered into an agreement with the council in terms of which it will draw up their syllabi as well. In the case of the association this cannot happen.

Another important point is that when the self-governing States entered into contracts with the Government, it was clearly stated that part IV of the Nursing Act of 1957 would not apply to them. Part IV of the Act is the only section of the 1957 Act which still exists, and as soon as section 38 of the Nursing Act, 1978, is implemented, that section will lapse as well.

The South African Nursing Act applies only to nurses in the territories which I have just defined. As far as the other States are concerned, the Ciskei and Gazankulu already have their own nursing association. In Lebowa they are establishing such an association; in fact, I am informed that the matter has already been concluded. There is very good co-operation among Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana and our Nursing Association. Anyone in the world can become a non-practicing member of a nursing association on payment of R5, and as such receives the monthly or annual journal of the association and apart from that can use the libraries of the association.

However, what is being contemplated, by the Nursing Association as well? As nursing associations are established in the other States of Southern Africa, the various associations will meet from time to time to discuss conditions of service, conditions of employment and so on. Perhaps a better dispensation for all the nurses in South Africa could be brought about at that level, as is being contemplated in other fields as well.

†The hon. member for Parktown asked whether a nurse would be allowed to keep and supply schedule 7 medicine. This is not what we envisage. Schedules 1 to 4 medicines will be involved. This will be prescribed by regulation. For this reason there is a section in the Act which provides that regulations shall be made in regard to certain things.

The hon. member also asked whether the Bill was referred to the Pharmacy Board, the Medical Council and the Medicines Control Council, and what their reactions were. The Medical Council agreed with the object of the Bill but not with the method to achieve that object. The council is of the opinion that the Medicines Control Act, the Pharmacy Act and the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act should be altered. The S.A. Pharmacy Board and the Medicines Control Council appreciate the problem as far as the activities of nurses are concerned and those pertaining to the medical practitioner, but are of the opinion that the matter should be regulated under the Pharmacy Act and the Medicines Control Act as far as the medicine that is prescribed is concerned. These bodies had reservations as far as control over medicines was concerned. The draft Bill submitted to these bodies was amended “in the light of the comments received from them. A number of amendments were effected as a result of their comments. Safeguards have been included, namely that the Director-General must consult with the Pharmacy Board in regard to the designation of an organization performing a health service and also that the medicines to be kept and supplied must be prescribed by regulation. A nurse can perform this function only if a pharmacist is not available.

In this respect I should also like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member said that nurses were going to be pushed in where there were shortages of doctors and pharmacists. That is not the intention with this Bill. The idea is to utilize the services of nurses mainly in those areas where we run outside clinics and where, as I have explained in the Second Reading debate of this Bill, there is not a single pharmacist or doctor anywhere to be seen. We do have a number of areas like that where doctors are concentrated at a central point while we have to provide the medical services in the outer areas. It also fits in with our concept of community health. We take the health services to the people, and so these nurses will be allowed to perform a number of duties which they may not otherwise perform. Nurses are controlled under the Nursing Act and they cannot be allowed to perform functions unless it is sanctioned by the Nursing Council. We cannot go and amend a number of Acts just to satisfy the South African Medical and Dental Council, the Pharmacy Board and the Pharmacy Association and make our task administratively difficult, when the obvious Act to amend is the Nursing Act. That is what we are doing in this case. These people are nurses and are under the control and the jurisdiction of the Nursing Association and ultimately of the Nursing Council.

*I think I have now more or less replied to all the questions put by the hon. member. If the hon. member thinks I have left anything out, he must just give me an indication. However, according to my notes I think I have replied to all his questions either by way of a direct answer to the hon. member or by way of replies to the speeches of other hon. members.

I now come to the hon. member for Berea. I discovered some time ago that the hon. member for Berea would have something to say about this Bill. I was on vacation in Natal and read in the Natal Mercury: “PFP men meet the kwaZulu Cabinet.” The report stated—

Mr. Speaker, I find this a strange way of going about things.

Why?

We have here a self-governing State. Those hon. members do not represent the Zulus in this House. That hon. member represents Berea, and I want to say to him today that from now on he should confine himself to Berea and our national affairs, and must stop acting as a mouthpiece for …

Who do you think you are?

You are talking nonsense as usual.

That hon. member must stop acting as a mouthpiece for Chief Buthelezi and Dr. Madide. We discuss matters with them directly. I have already called on them.

I will not take any orders from you.

If that is not those members’ policy, then that is their affair, but it is our policy that there will be independent Black States, that there will be self-governing Black States of which kwaZulu is one. They chose that, and they entered into a contract with the Government to regulate their own affairs. That includes their health affairs as well. Dr. Madide is their Minister of Health.

Tell them they may not speak to us, and then hear what they have to say.

I did not say that they may not speak to those hon. members. [Interjections.] Those hon. members can speak to whomever they like. After all, they speak to people who come here from the church. However, the hon. member for Berea cannot act as spokesman in this House for the kwaZulu Government. Through my colleague I speak directly to the kwaZulu Government concerning their health matters and the nurses, too, speak to those people directly. We do not need a second-rate intermediary to speak to kwaZulu.

Third class.

It would be interesting to know what the advice was which the hon. member gave to kwaZulu’s Minister of Health concerning how they should act towards the Nursing Association. After all, the hon. member did not just sit there sphinx-like, merely listening. Surely they gave advice, did they not? Those people discussed matters with me, too, and therefore that advice eventually filtered through to me. Does that hon. member wish to tell us what his advice was?

I have nothing to hide at all.

But you know, don’t you; so tell us.

Check your tape recording.

We can discuss the matter again on some other occasion. [Interjections.] As I said, the advice found its way to me and therefore I know what discussions have been held from time to time.

I know you have your spies.

I think I have now replied to all the questions put by the hon. member.

In reply to the questions put by other hon. members I put it clearly that the self-governing States must establish their own association. They must lay down their own formulae and they may by all means make use of our legislation if they wish, but in accordance with an agreement already entered into in terms of the 1971 Act, they cannot fall under this legislation after I have put section 38 into effect. This is not done out of ill-will. Surely every governing group has its own people and would like to do the best for them. How can our Nursing Association go and say to Chief Buthelezi and his Minister that they want certain things for the nurses in kwaZulu? Do hon. members think those gentlemen will take any notice of them? They will take as much notice of them as the Ciskeian Government took notice of the deputation which went to look at their territory. After all, they do their own work and regulate their own affairs.

Does that hon. member want to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister: Will nurses be used only where the services of a medical practitioner or pharmacist are not available?

I have already explained this to the Nursing Association. I consulted with them yesterday. The hon. member probably has too, because all the questions put by the hon. member are also questions put to me by them. I put it to them very clearly that there is nothing in this legislation which can pose any threat to the private medical practitioner or pharmacist. This only applies in cases where we are compelled to take services to certain groups of people in areas where no pharmacist or doctor is readily available or where there is a doctor who has a number of clinics under him. We achieve very sound results with services of this kind because the people in question are well-trained sisters who can carry on with the ordinary work. I have also said that there is no question of pharmacists being retired and sisters appointed in order to man pharmacists at hospitals, for example. That is not the purpose of this legislation, and I wish to state this very clearly here and now, because it is the policy of the Government to encourage a spirit of free enterprise among pharmacists. We are even considering how to accommodate them in the health centres we are establishing. I put this to them yesterday, too. I do not know whether we are going to find a practical method of doing so, but I mentioned this merely to show them that we do not wish to expand Government health services. Since the country as a whole is becoming more prosperous it is very important that we begin to see to it that our people begin to contribute financially at all levels to the health services in this country. This cannot rest solely on the shoulders of a small group of people. That is our whole approach. Since we have to do this, we do at least want nurses to be covered by legislation such as this so that they can be brought in as part of the health team we have developed.

I have not yet replied to the questions put by the hon. member for Swellendam. He raised a number of interesting aspects. The hon. member put it very clearly that this measure could be ascribed to a shortage of skilled manpower we are experiencing in this country. This is not so because the country is faring badly, but indeed because it is really faring very well. Accordingly it is easier for people to find employment when they move from one place to another than it was ten to 15 years ago. When one is compelled to implement these measures it is often because the economic conditions are such that the people find greener pastures elsewhere and one then has to make use of the trained people who are available.

The hon. member’s whole contribution was sound. He also made the point that the nurse who does the work nowadays is an exceptional nurse. She is no longer the nurse of 10 to 15 years ago who cleaned the cupboards and the ward and wiped the walls and floors. Nowadays she is a highly trained person. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the trained sister of today compares very well, as far as training is concerned, with the medical practitioner of 25 to 30 years ago. The intensive care sister of today is more competent to deal with certain matters than I used to be as a general practitioner, and I think the hon. member for Parktown agrees with me. Therefore we must see to it that we make increasing use of them, because we shall get them. As our hospital-oriented services switch to community services, she must take the lead to assist us in co-operation with the private sector. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of clause 1, especially of clause 1(b), in terms of which the Minister will have a controlling influence over any amendments to the constitution of the Nursing Association. We on this side of the House unfortunately cannot accept his explanation and I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The hon. the Minister has outlined the reasons why he wants to retain this power. It is interesting that it is very strictly defined who may join the Nursing Association. We would accept that nurses, be they trained nurses or nurse-aides, are very responsible people doing a very responsible job. First of all, we are not dealing with people whose ideas are easily changed. In addition, it is even more strictly defined who is entitled to vote to elect members to the board of the association or to any regional board. They have to be registered nurses. Nurse-aides no longer have this right. The registered nurses are at the top of the nursing profession.

What I find difficult to accept is that if these people should desire to change the constitution, the Minister does not trust them to do the best for their association. The hon. the Minister has given us examples of what can happen.

*I think the hon. the Minister let the cat out of the bag in his Second Reading speech. He said—

It is very modern and also a very good thing to omit the words “race and colour” from everything, but then it is only the words. When it comes to deeds, a difference between race and colour still exists in the nursing profession. It still exists in the daily situation. In a previous speech the hon. the Minister said that for as long as he was Minister this would not happen. Therefore we find that while the new constitution makes no reference to race or colour, it still applies in the profession as such. Now the hon. the Minister wants to retain his powers in this regard, and I think the reason for his wanting to do this is that he is afraid that something might happen which would offend certain people. What would happen—we on this side of the House hope that it will never happen—if the HNP were to win the next election? Then their Minister of Health would have this power over the Nursing Association. What would happen if an HNP Minister of Health were to be sitting in the bench of the hon. the Minister?

He must do as he deems fit.

Yes, but we on this side of the House do not want to give him the power to do as he deems fit.

†What would happen if the NRP were to win the next election, if by some accident they become 120? Would they apply their local option? “Local option” means that the Nursing Association has the right to decide for themselves what their constitution must be and how it should be amended. Or would it be, as we saw yesterday, that “local option” consists of reading just one part of The Natal Mercury and not the whole of that newspaper?

*I can see that it might happen at some stage that there would be a constellation of Southern African States. Suppose the nurses were to decide that in that constellation they wanted to have a constellation of nursing associations as well, or that all registered nurses in South Africa had to become members of the South African Nursing Association, and they wanted to change their constitution. Suppose an HNP Minister of Health were sitting in the hon. the Minister’s bench and put a stop to it. Does the hon. the Minister not think that the very thing he is trying to prevent would then happen, viz. that race relations would be harmed?

†Therefore we on this side of the House cannot support the provision giving the hon. the Minister that right. I accept the hon. the Minister’s good intentions, but we have seen in the past what hon. Ministers can do and how they can use their powers. I would therefore be very pleased if my amendment could be accepted. We trust responsible people to make responsible amendments to their constitution, amendments which are in the best interests of their association.

Mr. Chairman, I have already given my reasons for this and do not therefore wish to elaborate on it at this stage. I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Parktown as they have been framed. I must say I find the example given by the hon. member most peculiar. Those hon. members are after all the official Opposition; why do they think that the HNP may succeed me?

You did not hear me very well. I said I hoped that would never happen.

That was the first point which I found rather strange. The second point was that the Minister cannot amend the constitution. No provision is made anywhere for the Minister to be able to amend the constitution. The constitution of the Nursing Association was set out in the 1957 Act. The association did not draw up the constitution, but we are now giving it the right to do so. However, as there is going to be a change-over and there will only be one association to which all members are going to be admitted, we wish to ensure that they will be able to carry on in a peaceful and quiet atmosphere for a few years under the constitution they draw up. I have already said that if it should appear to be unnecessary to have this provision, we can always repeal it. There must however be a starting point. Colour is not the only factor involved here. The association has asked that only registered nurses take part in an election.

They may approach us again next year—that is their prerogative—and say that they want the other groups to be included as well.

Then you can put a stop to it.

I cannot reply to the hon. member at this stage because I never reply to hypothetical questions. Say the White members of the association come forward with a majority vote in a year’s time and say they want Black members to have only one vote for every two votes cast. I give this as a very simple example. If they make this kind of submission, from which it appears that there are problems among the members, the Minister must at least be able to ensure good order and the preservation of sound relations. If they have accepted the constitution and everything is functioning smoothly, there will be no problem.

I just feel that they are responsible people.

That is true, and that is exactly what I said. We discussed the entire piece of legislation with them and they were satisfied with this amendment.

I must tell the hon. member for Parktown that unfortunately I cannot accept his amendment. I have already given him my reasons. He must understand the facts of the situation. There is nothing malicious in this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the information he has given us and we shall therefore not be moving an amendment in so far as a state of emergency is concerned.

As far as supporting the official Opposition is concerned, we do not see our way clear to do so for the simple reason that the hon. the Minister already has the power. This therefore is nothing new. As far as we are concerned, the crux of the whole matter is that the Nursing Association has in fact accepted this legislation in toto.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister in replying to the comments that I had made in regard to this legislation during the Second Reading debate showed himself to be extremely sensitive on the subject of the association’s relationship with kwaZulu. Of course, Sir, I am not surprised that he is sensitive in regard to the subject because we all know that he is on a very sticky wicket on this particular issue. The more one listens to the hon. the Minister, the more one is brought under the impression that what we are dealing with here is an exercise in duplicity in so far as kwaZulu is concerned. That is what it is. The hon. the Minister challenges my right to discuss this matter. He says that it is not a matter that should be discussed under this Bill.

You can talk on the matter but not on behalf of kwaZulu.

I do not purport to talk on behalf of kwaZulu and it is in this regard that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House should now start trying to understand our situation in Natal. It is quite correct that I represent the White constituents of Berea but the hon. the Minister must know that in Natal we are very conscious indeed of the interdependence of all sections of the population. We are very conscious indeed of the need to work very closely with all sections of the population in Natal. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I do not take advice from him as to whom I shall consult. I do not take advice from him as to what issues I shall raise in this House. I shall not do so either. The hon. the Minister is the last person from whom I would seek advice.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the fact, as if he had discovered something quite new—he quoted in this regard from a newspaper article—that we had had a meeting before this session of Parliament with the kwaZulu Cabinet. Yes, Sir. We do believe that it is absolutely essential for us as responsible public representatives to maintain a very close relationship with other groups in Natal.

You had to be briefed by them.

Certainly, Sir. One discusses with them the problems of common interest that there are because we are all South Africans. That is the difference. I do not see those people as being foreigners. I do not believe and I know that in law they are not foreigners. I know that in law they are members of the Republic of South Africa the same as I am and the same as the hon. the Minister is. Certainly we consulted them before this session of Parliament.

I want to give the hon. the Minister some further news. We consulted representatives of kwaZulu yesterday and again this morning including Dr. Madidi who was in my office a few hours ago. Sir, this is consultation. We are not ashamed of it and we are not hiding it. I believe it is our duty as responsible public representatives to discuss matters of mutual concern.

In so far as this particular measure is concerned representations were made to me not by Black nurses but by White nurses in Natal who were very concerned about the consequences of this particular provision and the consequences of the draft constitution which, as I say, I have in my possession and which will presumably be the constitution on which the hon. the Minister, if he uses the authority given to him in this Bill, will have to pass judgment, a constitution which shows a new definition. It states, inter alia, that the Republic shall exclude self-governing States. Last night we had the interjection from the hon. member for Klip River who said: “Yes, of course kwaZulu is a self-governing State.” This morning the hon. the Minister has indicated exactly the same. I think the statement of the hon. the Minister this morning was a remarkable one because what he did this morning was to indicate that he and his Government had in some strange way declared their own sort of UDI.

That is not so.

Yes, of course.

The hon. the Minister has said that kwaZulu is not part of the Republic; they are a self-governing State. I want to say that in terms of the laws of South Africa until a State takes its final step towards independence or until a State opts to become a sovereign independent State, that State is part of the Republic of South Africa, and the citizens of that area in South Africa are citizens of the Republic of South Africa. That is the situation. As I said last night, it seems as if the hon. the Minister is going to discriminate against kwaZulu in this manner, although they have given every indication that they do not want to become a separate independent State, and although the nurses have indicated that they do not want a separate association. The hon. the Minister challenges that and he says to me that representatives have been at the meeting in Transkei. Does he deny that the kwaZulu Government have asked that their nurses be part and parcel of the South African Nursing Association? Will the hon. the Minister deny that the kwaZulu Government and the kwaZulu Minister of Health have asked that the agreement between the kwaZulu Government and the South African Government be amended in order to include them in chapter 4 so that kwaZulu nurses can be members of the South African Nursing Association? Does the hon. the Minister deny that? I read out last night extracts from the policy speech made by the Minister of Health in the kwaZulu Assembly in which he said that after this hon. Minister had visited kwaZulu and they had put their case and had stated the whole history of their representations, the hon. the Minister left and said that he would consider them. The hon. the Minister, however, indicated across the floor of the House that this was not so.

You said that I would go back and fix it up. That is what you have said.

I read out verbatim from the policy statement of the Minister of Health in the kwaZulu Assembly who said—

That is this hon. Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation—

Is that true?

Is it true or is it not true?

That second part is not correct.

So the hon. the Minister gave no undertaking that he would look into the matter? Is that what he is telling me?

Will you read that last part of the sentence again?

The last part of the sentence reads—

That last part of the sentence is not correct.

So the hon. the Minister gave no undertaking.

I gave no undertaking.

I then want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that kwaZulu wants chapter 4 included in the agreement and whether it is correct that such representations have been made to him. Is it correct or is it not correct?

That they wanted it included?

That they asked that chapter 4 of the Act be included in the agreement between the kwaZulu Government and the South African Government; is that correct?

It was part of their discussion.

Then why does the hon. the Minister not accede to their request?

I told them there it would not be legally possible.

No, that is not correct. If the hon. the Minister thinks it is not legally possible, he must look again at the agreement between the kwaZulu Government and the South African Government. I have a copy of it here and it is perfectly clear that in the original agreement chapters 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Nursing Act were included. If one looks at chapter 13 of the agreement, one finds that it reads—

They have asked for it to be amended. They have referred to chapter 13 of this agreement.

There are two sides to it.

Yes, but I want to know. Of course there are two sides, but it is legally possible. The hon. the Minister and the Nursing Association, however, say it is not legally possible for them to be included. It is legally possible if the will is there on the part of the Government. The will is, however, not there on the part of the Government because, as I say, the Government have a preconceived idea that whether kwaZulu wants independence or not, they are going to force it into an independent situation. That came through very clearly this morning, and also last night. The hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite simply say they have made up their minds that these are self-governing States and in their own minds they identify that with fully sovereign independent States. This is the sort of situation which exists in respect of this and many other pieces of legislation in South Africa. They have a preconceived idea. This “kragdadige” Government is resolved to force people into independence. Where are all the promises made by the hon. the Prime Minister, by his predecessor and others, that it is not the policy to force people into independence? Here we have a classic example. Here we have a clear request from Black nurses in South Africa, Black nurses in kwaZulu, to be part and parcel of a multiracial South African Nursing Association, and the Government is using all sorts of devious means to resist meeting that request, that desire.

The Bill clearly states, on page 2 in line 6––

I believe this has to apply—if the law means anything—to a Black nurse practising in kwaZulu, because kwaZulu is part of the Republic of South Africa, and such a nurse therefore has to be a member of the S.A. Nursing Association. Does the hon. the Minister deny that that is indeed the situation?

It has nothing to do with the Act of 1978.

But I am asking this in terms of the word we see before us, the word as contained in the Bill we are discussing now. Does this or does this not mean that a Black nurse in kwaZulu falls within the definition which says that she is a practising nurse who is practising her profession within the Republic? Surely, it does.

Such a nurse is already excluded in terms of the Act of 1957 because chapter 4 was not accepted by the kwaZulu Government.

All right. We get back now to chapter 4 of the agreement. Why is the Government reluctant to amend the agreement with kwaZulu and include chapter 4? Why is the Government reluctant to do so? What is the reason? We have a situation as I have said, in which the kwaZulu Government wants to co-operate on a multiracial basis in an organization such as the S.A. Nursing Association … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the hon. member’s argument forthwith. He has accepted the fact—he mentioned that briefly—that there was an agreement at the stage when kwaZulu wanted self-government. Nobody forced them to accept self-government. They asked for it themselves and they received self-government on the basis of various Acts that had been passed earlier. In accepting self-government they obtained control of their own Department of Health. The hon. the member for Berea has said the kwaZulu Minister of Health was in his office this morning. Dr. Madidi runs his own nursing services in kwaZulu. During the discussion I had in kwaZulu, their chief nursing officer mentioned to me …

*I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to show me the courtesy of allowing me to have the attention of the hon. member. I am replying to the hon. member for Berea. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can tell him at some later stage what he is to say with regard to the legislation.

All right. Just do not get excited.

No, I am not getting excited. The only thing is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must please be courteous when I am addressing the hon. member for Berea, otherwise I shall leave off my explanation and sit down.

Do just as you please.

Yes, rather sit down.

The question of the agreement is one of the prime issues. The kwaZulu Government agreed with our proposal. Nothing was forced down anybody’s throat. Why should we amend it in the case of kwaZulu when Gazankulu has already accepted it? Ciskei has a very well-functioning association. Lebowa is in the process of establishing its own association. Therefore I find it very strange that we should be expected to go to such a great deal of trouble simply to accommodate kwaZulu.

It is because you do not want too many bodies … [Interjections.]

Once we agreed to amending this agreement with kwaZulu it would mean that the S.A. Nursing Association would have a say over nurses who are under the control of Dr. Madidi. Is he going to approve of that? Is he going to approve of the S.A. Nursing Association dictating to him what salaries kwaZulu should pay to its nurses, what hours they should be working, etc.? Just imagine the chaos that would cause. If the kwaZulu Government should then say it is not interested in the conditions put forward by the S.A. Nursing Association, what then? What will the hon. member for Berea suggest then?

But they can negotiate.

Yes, they can negotiate.

What the hon. member for Berea is suggesting here amounts to using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. If this specific legal stipulation should motivate kwaZulu to ask for independence it is up to them. I told them so at that particular meeting. Chief Gatsha Buthulezi then thought it the appropriate time to make a political speech. That was when he said he did not want independence. I was not prepared for a political speech. In my reply to his speech I told him it was up to him, that he could accept independence or reject it, as has been made clear by the predecessor of the hon. the Prime Minister.

What people do not seem to appreciate is that the moment the constitution of the S.A. Nursing Association becomes operative, the 1978 Act will take full effect and chapter 4 will fall away. At that stage we will only have one body, the S.A. Nursing Association. Other national States will have their own nursing associations. In terms of our policy it is correct that they should have their own nursing associations. I am not here to support the policy of the PFP. I am here to carry out the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] If kwaZulu does not want to accept independence, it is something they should discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister. It is not my duty to tell them whether they should or should not accept independence. I am sure that they will not conduct discussions with the hon. the Prime Minister through the hon. member for Berea. They will conduct their discussions with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

*I repeat that I find it strange that I have to listen here to long arguments on what the Minister of Health said in kwaZulu and what he said in the hon. member’s office only this morning. I should like to tell the Minister of Health of kwaZulu that there is a channel through which he can work. He may approach the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development through his Chief Minister, and if he wants to have discussions with me on nursing affairs falling within the scope of South Africa’s Nursing Association, he may approach me directly. There is no need for him to go to those hon. members. I listened to him and I said that I should give consideration to what he had said, but I wish to repeat that I did not say anywhere that I would come back and persuade the Nursing Association to take them back, for if I understood him correctly, that was not the tenor of his words. I regret having to say it in this House, because I do not think that this is the right place for continuing discussions with the kwaZulu Government.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear from the debate that the motivation for the clause under discussion in so far as its legal significance is concerned, derives from what the hon. the Minister has told us in introducing the Bill. I am just a little bit surprised that in motivating this no reference was made by the hon. the Minister with regard to the kwaZulu situation.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member for Berea and the hon. the Minister to deal with the agreement between kwaZulu and the Government of the Republic of South Africa. I now request the hon. member to return to the details of the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. However, there is significance in what I am saying. I shall explain this in a moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he is digging his heels in so deep on this matter and did not accede to the very reasonable request made by the hon. member for Parktown in the amendment that he has moved. I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that where there is an autonomous body, a responsible body, a professional body such as the S.A. Nursing Association, one does not want to interfere with its domestic affairs. I think that would be wrong, whether it be the doctor’s profession, the lawyers’ profession or any other profession. Only recently we held discussions in this House with regard to homeopaths, osteopaths, etc., and how we then put them on a proper footing by allowing them to form their own association. I think it was this hon. Minister or his predecessor who said that they must first find their own feet and that they could then become more autonomous, look after their own affairs and create their own discipline. That system cannot be applied to important organizations such as the S.A. Nursing Association.

As the hon. the Minister told us during his Second Reading speech, they received their association in 1944 on a statutory basis. Further amendments were made to the Act, and it was only in 1978 that they were granted autonomy, when the Minister’s right to interfere with the association was taken away. That is why I cannot understand the argument raised by the hon. member for South Coast where he said that the hon. the Minister always had the right to interfere with the association. If that is so, why then are we discussing this amendment now? It would not be necessary at all. Assuming that only a small amendment to the constitution of the association is proposed, does the hon. the Minister really want to interfere? Does the hon. the Minister really want to interfere with that? Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the constitution of the association with me—it is not attached to the Bill—but in any constitution amending that constitution is a very important factor. An accepted period of notice is stipulated, every member must be notified and a special or an annual general meeting must be convened for considering any change to the constitution. Why then, under those circumstances, interfere with the association’s rights to change it?

One must now look at the motivations for this, and I quote from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech (Hansard, 14 August)—

That is a fine statement, and we accept that no difference is being made between colour and race. The Minister went on to say—

On the one hand the hon. the Minister suddenly brings in the question of race and colour and in the very next sentence he indicates that in order to avoid any problem with regard to that, he must have the right to interfere. These two arguments are contradictory. If one compliments the association on the fact that they are a multiracial body, that is fine. However, immediately thereafter it is implied that because they are a multiracial body there is likely to be difficulties, and because of this someone may run to this hon. Minister and say: “There might be a problem in this regard and you had better help us out; you must be the final arbiter. We do not want to quarrel with them, we will put the ball in your court. You will have to deal with it; you must now protect us.”

Prima facie the hon. the Minister should have no right to interfere with an autonomous body of this nature, and I am now asking the hon. the Minister to take this House into his confidence. He must tell us, if he did receive a request from the association, whether this was a request from the entire association at a general meeting, whether this is the feeling of all the members, or whether this is not perhaps a feeling of a section of the members who may be afraid that something may happen to the association and are therefore trying to prevent a situation developing from which they may not be able to escape. If it is not the situation in regard to kwaZulu that led to the inclusion of this provision in the Bill, can the hon. the Minister tell us what gave rise to it? Churchill once said: “There is always a good reason and there is always a true reason.” No doubt there will be a good reason, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the true reason is for maintaining this clause.

We have an amendment here giving the Minister the right to approve the constitution, and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the relationship is between that amendment and the first part of the clause in regard to which the hon. member for Berea specifically raised the point concerning persons practising their professions in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied adequately to this matter. I have declared my bona fides here and stated that there are no hostile intentions behind this clause. In my Second Reading speech I said that this clause was necessary to avoid discrepancies, and I explained to the hon. member for Parktown what I meant by that. The hon. member for Hillbrow was here while I was explaining this and I also referred to a speech which he made. I therefore feel that I have furnished sufficient explanations. This is being done, inter alia, to make provision for proper transitional period, and I explained that this was not a new principle. The entire constitution was contained in an earlier Act, but now the association can draw up its own constitution. As soon as this clause comes into effect, Part IV of the Nursing Act will fall away and the new constitution will come into effect. The only power I am acquiring here is to ensure that the transitional period proceeds smoothly. Every Act passed so far has made provision for this. As soon as that clause is implemented, the 1957 Act will be repealed, and this is all that is involved in this entire matter. One should not conjure up spectres at every turn. I am satisfied that this legislation makes provision for a proper transitional period. After that we shall have a good Nursing Act for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I think that before this House adjourns today the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to correct a standpoint he adopted here earlier today. He said, inter alia, that in terms of the constitutional legislation of the national States the areas which are self-governing do not form part of the Republic of South Africa. I wish to refer to this directly.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to the agreement. I have already given my ruling. It has no bearing on the principle of the Bill. The hon. member is deviating from the principle.

Mr. Chairman, it has a direct bearing on the principle. May I address you on this matter?

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that the principle was accepted at the Second Reading. The hon. member cannot therefore discuss the principle now. The hon. member may deal only with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister is correct in what he says, there is a specific meaning which is being attached to the proposed subsection (1), unless the hon. the Minister has merely made another mistake.

Order! The hon. member may raise that matter during the Third Reading. I have already ruled that the hon. member may not address the Committee any further on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister must ponder the possibility of whether he was wrong again or whether he was merely given the wrong information on the actual meaning.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I object. We heard this debate this morning. The hon. Opposition …

Order! The hon. member is not raising a point of order. I have already given my ruling. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the second point I wish to raise, is in connection with clause 1(b). The hon. the Minister knows, as a matter of fact it is common knowledge, that among nurses in South Africa—I am referring here to people with an abiding interest in the work they do, to dedicated people—there is profound dissatisfaction because they work long hours, because there is such a shortage that they must regularly work overtime and because the remuneration they receive for the work they do is so inadequate that it is absolutely impossible for them to make a decent living.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but he must please confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if you would just give me a chance you will see what I am driving at. Surely I must first sketch the background. I cannot get to the point without sketching the background.

Mr. Chairman, it is a fact, and the hon. the Minister is aware of this, that there is dissatisfaction among nurses in respect of the leadership in the Nursing Association.

That is their problem. It has nothing to do with me.

There is dissatisfaction, and the reason for this dissatisfaction is …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to digress from the provisions of this clause. The hon. member will have another opportunity to debate this matter when the Vote of the hon. the Minister is being discussed.

But Mr. Chairman, I want to demonstrate that the nurses most probably want to do something about their association and the constitution of their association …

Order! That is not before this Committee at the moment. If the hon. member does not wish to discuss the provisions of the clause any further, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, then you must allow me to address you. The purport of this provision is that no changes may be made to the constitution of the S.A. Nursing Association without the approval of the Minister. I wish to state that there are most probably good reasons why the nurses wish to make changes to their constitution. I am merely explaining why they may wish to do so. There are three points in the present constitution which are of importance in this connection. In the first place there is dissatisfaction. If there were no dissatisfaction they would not want to make any changes. There is dissatisfaction in the association with the leadership in that association and with the existing constitution of that association, because the people feel that the leadership does not have their interests at heart and does not ensure that the Government reacts to representations made to it.

I can mention for example that the association is a body created in terms of existing legislation. The principal Act made provision for the creation of an association for nurses. However, the Act provided that there would only be one association in South Africa to represent nurses in this country. If the nurses want improved working conditions their association has to make representations to the hon. the Minister. In terms of this provision the hon. the Minister will have the right to prevent changes being made to the constitution of that association. Suppose the nurses are no longer prepared to accept the status quo and would like to establish another association which would then be able to look after their interests effectively. What would happen? This is already being prohibited in terms of the Nursing Act.

There is however another point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In the existing legislation it is laid down that nurses in South Africa may not strike, no matter how dissatisfied they may be with their working conditions. Irrespective of the amount of patience displayed by nurses in the past, in terms of a provision of the existing Act they may not strike. Now they will not be able to change their constitution to make provision for this either, because this provision says that the final decision rests with the hon. the Minister. So, in terms of the proposed amendment, nurses are deprived of every possible alternative for improving their situation. They may not create another association, they may not strike and they may not make any changes to their constitution without the consent of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is the arbiter when it comes to improvements in their working conditions, and now he will also be the arbiter when it comes to changes in their constitution.

I believe that the nurses in South Africa have suffered for long enough as a result of the actions of this Government. I therefore wish to issue a warning. If the Government continues to take steps of this nature, so that nurses are prohibited from making changes in their constitution themselves, it is playing a very dangerous game in South Africa, because nurses are beginning to lose their patience. During the past few years every plea by nurses for improved working conditions has fallen on deaf ears.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to address the Committee any further on this aspect.

However, when they now want to make provision for changes in the constitution to enable them to improve their position, the Government wishes to prevent it.

Who is asking for this? You are asking for it, not they.

This is being prevented because there is no confidence in their leaders. I wonder if this is not perhaps an agreement entered into between the hon. the Minister and the leaders of the association.

I think you are making an absolute fool of yourself.

I think that when the nurses in South Africa find out what the Government is up to, there is going to be an eruption of extreme dissatisfaction in their ranks.

Mr. Chairman, I am not yet completely satisfied.

Order! Before the hon. member proceeds, I just wish to indicate once again that the principle of this Bill has already been approved at the Second Reading. Hon. members must now confine themselves to the clause as such, and the amendment to it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall confine myself to clause 1. It is obvious to me that in clause 1(a) it is clearly indicated who may join and who may decide who is to represent them. There is no doubt about this. It is a cause of grave concern to me that the words “within the Republic” can be applied in such a way that nurses, from kwaZulu for example, cannot be members of this Nursing Association. When the hon. the Minister tried to justify this in his speech he said Ciskei already had its own Nursing Association. I think the hon. the Minister also mentioned kwaZulu and other areas.

Gazankulu.

Very well. Thank you very much. I am in full agreement with this, but as far as I am concerned it is not a valid argument because the Cape also has a nursing association and even the Western Cape has its own association.

†These are regions which have their own associations. The Cape Province, with its own director, also is a kind of localized area. I think that self-governing areas like kwaZulu should also be a part of it. I think we must clear this matter up very carefully. If the nurses of kwaZulu want to be members of the S.A. Nursing Association, I cannot accept that that will not be allowed.

As regards paragraph (b), when all these people are defined it really means “one nurse, one vote”. This is what is going to happen. “One nurse, one vote” in turn means Black majority rule in the Nursing Association in the future. I believe that paragraph (b) has been inserted to prevent Black majority rule coming about in the Nursing Association. I do not think the hon. the Minister is right when he says he believes this will lead to Black majority rule. By means of paragraph (b) he wants to prevent Black majority rule, but it will not be a question of Black majority rule, but rather nurses’ rule. That is the principle on which we on this side of the House cannot agree with the Government side. This will not be Black majority rule, but nurses’ rule.

You are very naïve.

Nurses, who are responsible people, will be in charge and the Minister has no right, in my opinion, to interfere with them. Nurses themselves—not Black nurses, Coloured nurses or anything like that—nurses who are responsible for the lives and health of people, will decide their own future. I cannot accept that the hon. the Minister will not respect their desire to govern their own affairs.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Hillbrow, the hon. member for Bryanston also puts words into one’s mouth and then looks up at the Press Gallery to see if the Press has heard what he said.

Do not talk rubbish.

I never said that kwaZulu was not part of the Republic of South Africa at this stage. The hon. member for Parktown asked what the words “within the Republic” meant. I then said that for purposes of the definition the self-governing States and the independent States were not included.

You said this is in terms of the National States Act. It has nothing to do with that.

I said the self-governing and independent States were excluded by the 1978 Act.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

I say that the moment this legislation comes into effect with all its logical consequences, they will be excluded. This is as a result of the contract entered into when they accept self-government. I have explained this to the hon. member for Berea repeatedly. It is obvious that the hon. member for Bryanston, unprepared and uninformed as he was, tried to fire a few random shots at me and the nursing profession. I have done more for the nursing profession than he has done in his entire life. He just makes a noise.

That is not what they say.

He has said a number of irresponsible things here.

They say you are the most hopeless Minister they have ever had. Everyone says so.

That may be, but then that hon. member is the most hopeless member Bryanston has ever had. [Interjections.] The MPC for Bryanston is better than this hon. member is in this House. The hon. member can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

He spoke about dissatisfaction with the top administration. Surely that has nothing to do with me. Those people choose their own representatives. Let us consider what the 1957 Act provides. In terms of the present dispensation members of colour of the association do not vote with the Whites. Section 33 of the Act stipulates—

We now have this legislation because, as I said in my Second Reading speech, the nurses themselves felt we must delete this provision. As soon as this provision is deleted section 38 of the 1978 Act comes into operation. That section specifies that the association shall continue to exist as a juristic person and shall regulate its own affairs. The 1957 Act prescribed everything that appears in the constitution. Nothing is being prescribed here.

I wish to repeat what I said in connection with kwaZulu and the other self-governing States. The hon. member for Parktown asked me what is meant by “Republic” in the Bill. For the purposes of the definition and because they are excluded by contract, there is no legal way in which those States can be included in this legislation. Most of those States already have their own associations. It is our policy that they should have their own associations and provision has been made for this.

I should also like to object to the fact that the hon. member for Bryanston spoke of the incompetence of the top administration in the Nursing Association. I consider this to be a disgraceful remark.

I never said that.

The hon. member said he was dissatisfied with them. These are people—and here I am referring to Prof. Searle and others—who have probably done more for nurses than has ever been done for them in South Africa before and is more than that hon. member will ever accomplish in his lifetime, except to make interjections.

They have done a great deal and I have said so.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for his very clear and comprehensive explanation of this clause. I must admit that I am almost 100% satisfied with all his explanations and feel very happy. In my opinion clause 2 is of great value, because its provisions are clearly aimed at bridging a gap, and it will be of great assistance to nurses working in areas where there are no doctors. I asked a few questions and, as the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out, certain people came to see me to convey their ideas to me. I am certain they will also be satisfied when they read what the hon. the Minister told me. I am very grateful for this.

I wish I was in the position to be able to announce that I shall not prove the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. However, the hon. the Minister says he wants consultation whereas we say we want agreement. I wish there was a word halfway between these two because we would then certainly be in agreement. Before the end of the session I should like at some stage or other to be in agreement with the hon. the Minister; that would be very nice. Unfortunately I feel that the provision, as it reads now, gives too much power to the Director-General, because no matter what one says, if he does not want to agree, then he need not do so. I am sure this will not happen every day. I also agree with the hon. the Minister that there cannot always be agreement on a problem. I wonder if we cannot use the words “consultation” and “agreement” together.

I think that we should move the amendment and I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to get some clarification from the hon. the Minister on the last three lines of the clause, on page 4. The hon. the Minister indicated that what this was aimed at was to cover possible cases in rural areas where there may not be a doctor or any other medical practitioner. Do I understand it correctly? It is so that in rural areas people do not always have ready access to medical practitioners and pharmicists. I take it that in such an instance it would mean that nurses will then be entitled to diagnose. I want this to be made quite clear. As the hon. the Minister may be aware, there is a tendency, particularly in the USA, among people to take legal action against medical personnel at the drop of a hat. In the USA they are already using the term “defensive medicine”.

The point I want to raise is this. I believe we should have absolute clarity on this issue, because some day somebody is going to sue a nurse somewhere. I believe therefore that it would be useful if we could have some guidance from the hon. the Minister on this score. I am thinking now of a situation in which a nurse is, for example, working under a doctor and that doctor happens to be away, say in the evening. If that nurse feels that some action is necessary while no doctor is present there, what would her position be? Could the hon. the Minister see her being entitled to act in this particular situation, and will she be covered by the indemnity?

Mr. Chairman, if such a nurse falls into one of the categories of this legislation, which has already been approved by the Director-General, then she is immediately covered by the Nursing Association’s indemnity. That is one of the main reasons why we are bringing this provision into the Nursing Act. It is done in order to enable us to extend this indemnity in cases of this nature. Many sisters are already doing this type of work without being covered by the necessary indemnity. This is actually one of the things about which the Association was worried.

Mr. Chairman, we in the NRP do not agree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown. Our reasons for this are pretty clear. What the official Opposition wants is a Veto right, no more and no less. We do not believe this is in the interests of what is sought to be achieved by the legislation now before us, nor is it in the interest of the community as such. Therefore we cannot support the amendment, and we therefore support the hon. the Minister.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Anomalies in a tariff of fees occur frequently as a result of the large number of items. At present no provision exists in terms of which such anomalies can be adjusted quickly. It has to be reviewed by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and the council does not possess the power to delegate the function to one of its committees. This amendment is intended to rectify this shortcoming in the provisions of the law.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House thank the hon. Minister for his explanation and wish to state that we shall support the Bill. I think it is perhaps a good time to remind the House of the vastness of the medical aid schemes, the medical profession and the number of patients involved in this. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the annual report of 1980. It deals briefly with this and helps us to understand the vastness of the great work that is being done by the medical schemes. Last year the medical schemes paid out, according to the annual report, an amount of R159,7 million to doctors, specialists, medical practitioners, dentists, hospitals and others. There were then 294 medical schemes with millions of members and their dependants. Therefore I think that all hon. members would welcome any change that will make it easier to arrange tariffs and fees and to facilitate dealing with this. I think it is to the benefit of the medical schemes, to medical practitioners and the beneficiaries that this should be made easier and that there should be more control. We therefore support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it does one good to see for a change that the Opposition can also support a measure, as the hon. member for Parktown has just done. The amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister is intended to rectify anomalies which may exist between the medical disciplines in the intervening period. In other words, a professional association such as the Association of Surgeons, or the Association of Gynaecologists, etc., will be able to propose the amendment of an item in the tariff of fees, and this can be rectified if the Association of Medical Schemes agrees, without having to follow the lengthy course of the normal procedure. If such agreement is lacking, it is referred to the Tariffs Committee of the Medical Council.

I foresee that as a result of the rapid development of medical science, new procedures will come into being in the fields of surgery, gynaecology and especially in the field of diagnostics and also in the field of methods of treatment, which sometimes involve completely new procedures or which may include techniques for which no tariff determination exists at the moment. Or amended procedures may arise which may necessitate an adjustment of the tariff of fees. These corrections can now be made without having to follow the lengthy prescribed remuneration procedure. While we are talking about rectifying the statutory tariff, I should like to point out that a considerable measure of calmness and contentment is now prevailing in the medical profession with regard to this matter. Hon. members will recall the disputes, the squabbles that arose a few years ago between medical schemes, the Medical Association and the public about the tariff of fees and the question of medical practitioners contracting out. This situation harmed the status and prestige of the medical profession as well as the doctor-patient relationship. So the hon. the Minister is to be congratulated today on his ingenuity in introducing the new dispensation in terms of which the sub-committee of the Medical Council has to decide about the amendment of the tariff of fees. The amendments which the hon. the Minister is introducing today will undoubtedly help to facilitate the operation of this system. For this reason, I gladly support the amending Bill, because it will undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on the provision of medical services in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP welcomes this delegation of power and accordingly supports the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very kind of the hon. member for South Coast to be so short and to the point in telling us that they are also happy with these amendments. Personally I am also glad to support the amendment. When improvements to a system are being proposed, as in this case, one cannot help supporting them. I should also like to express my appreciation to those serving on the remuneration commission. They are accountable to the State, the medical and dental profession as well as to the patient, and that is no easy task. However, they are performing their task to good effect and we greatly appreciate their services. Obviously, anomalies will arise from time and will have to be rectified, and we should like to find a quick way of doing this. In this we enjoy the support of the entire House, and for that we are very grateful. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their support of the Bill. It must be one of the first Bills I have introduced to which all the parties have given their support in such a calm atmosphere. Perhaps it was a good thing that the hon. member for Rustenburg was the last speaker.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the tariff amendment. As he and other hon. members said, this is actually just to rectify an anomaly, for example, where there are tariffs which are perhaps not in line with what a practitioner should be getting. Such a correction can be made immediately by the tariffs committee and need not be held over until the council meets again, and it can then be implemented in terms of the Act.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his contribution. He said that a sense of calm had entered into the medical profession, and I think he is quite right. I am happy with the way in which negotiations with the Medical Association have been conducted recently. We have the wholehearted co-operation of its executive and of course of the Medical Council as well. I also wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the new president of the Medical Council, Prof. Frans Geldenhuys, on his election. I am sure that his calm attitude and the way he conducts himself will very greatly enhance the proceedings of that council. He is a respected person in our medical situation, so I believe he is in a position to convey that sense of calm.

†I would also like to thank the hon. member for South Coast. He is a man of few words but words that count when they are really needed.

*I also thank the hon. member for Rustenburg for his contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 30 of the Medical Schemes Act regulates the determination of the tariff of fees in respect of services rendered by private hospitals. It requires the Minister to approve such a tariff of fees in all cases before it comes into operation. In cases where private hospitals and medical schemes agree about a tariff, there is no need for such control, and therefore the provision is being amended accordingly.

During 1980, persons and bodies rendering services to members of medical schemes according to the tariff of fees were given the right to send their first account directly to the medical scheme. The obligation was imposed upon the medical scheme to settle such an account in full within six weeks.

After the amendment was made, the S.A. Medical and Dental Council was of the opinion that patients were entitled to receive an account. The Medical Association and Dental Association recommended their members to send a copy of such an account to the patient. Although the payment of accounts was expedited, it is understood to the sending of duplicate accounts increased practice costs.

On the other hand, medical schemes are being swamped with duplicate accounts. In some cases, the member concerned is not correctly identified on the account, resulting in incorrect payments which subsequently have to be rectified. Another result has been an abnormal increase in the administrative work of medical schemes, with a corresponding increase in costs which medical schemes can hardly afford.

Under the circumstances, it is proposed that the Act be amended to restore the position to which it was in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House unfortunately have to oppose the Bill. Clause 1, as explained by the hon. the Minister, is quite acceptable, but we have problems with clause 2. The hon. the Minister has explained the reasons why he wants to delete section 32(1)(b). As the subsection stands at the moment, a doctor, pharmacist or hospital, or anyone who renders a service to a patient, can send his account directly to the medical scheme. This must happen within 30 days. There is also an understanding that he should send the account to the medical scheme. This provision is now being taken away and the person who renders this service must now send his account to the patient within 30 days. After another 30 days an account must again be sent to the patient and only his third account may be sent directly to the medical scheme, which must pay him within six weeks. I doubt whether hon. members of this House would like to wait three months plus six weeks for their monthly cheques. I doubt whether they will accept that. I do not believe that anyone, except the medical scheme, will benefit from this amendment. I do not think that the medical profession will derive any benefit from it, because although problems were experienced with the medical schemes, I think we can make rules in terms of which a doctor may send such an account to the medical scheme with a clear indication that the account has already been sent to the patient. Some doctors have done this, but I think that it has not always been done properly. I certainly do not think that the rest of the medical profession should be made to pay because of a few doctors who have not done this properly. Let us suppose that the hon. member for Hillbrow goes to Durban on holiday and gets ill the same night. [Interjections.] Yes, I think we should all have a holiday. As the hon. member for Hillbrow is a member of a medical aid scheme, the medical aid fund must pay his account if the fee charged by the doctor is within the limits of the tariff laid down. Let us say the hon. member for Hillbrow is suffering from a bad attack of asthma, that this is diagnosed by the doctor and that he is sent to a chemist. Let us say the cost of the medicines runs to about R100. The pharmacist, of course, will demand payment for those medicines on the spot, because he is not going to wait for upward of three months for his money. He is not going to risk losing that amount of money. So in my opinion this amendment does not do the patient or the medical profession any good. I could give a lot of examples of what is going to happen. I think the medical aid funds are the only bodies that will benefit from this amending legislation.

It is very interesting to note that in South Africa there are 294 medical aid schemes. Of these, 210 are aid schemes as such, 32 are benefit schemes and 52 are exempted. There is also a great difference in the attitudes of the three groups towards the medical profession. Approximately 4½ million people benefit from medical schemes. Doctors also form part of these schemes as a whole. On the one hand there is the medical scheme itself and on the other there is the medical profession, with the patient in the middle.

I think the hon. the Minister of Health acts as the referee to control the actions of these groups. It has been said that a calmness has entered into the relationship between the medical schemes and the medical practitioners. I think that this amending legislation, however, is going to have an effect which is diametrically opposed to what we hope will happen. I think this amendment will merely increase the resolve of medical practitioners to contract out. In the annual report there is an indication of how many doctors, dentists and physiotherapists are contracted out. I think the annual report also shows, in the contrast between 1980 and 1979, how there has been an improvement. In 1979, for example, 3 657 medical practitioners were contracted out. Those medical practitioners, in other words, do not accept the tariffs laid down and send their accounts directly to the patient concerned. Their fees are usually higher than the tariffs laid down. The patient, who therefore has to pay a little more, has to settle his account directly with the doctor concerned. In 1980 there were 3 327 medical practitioners who had contracted out. There has consequently been a drop in the number of doctors who have contracted out, because the medical practitioners and the medical aid funds thought they could come closer together and find an easier way to effect payment of accounts. In 1979 983 dentists were contracted out, in contrast with 935 in 1980, again a decrease. In both years three physiotherapists were contracted out.

I have said before, but I want to reiterate, that this amendment will only prove of value to the medical aid funds. I personally think that the medical aid schemes need to get their house in order. I cannot see why there have to be 294 medical aid schemes in the country. This means 294 different secretaries, different offices, etc. Some medical aid schemes do share facilities, I agree, but I do not see why there have been to be so many medical aid schemes in South Africa to serve only 4½ million people. In other countries there are two or three medical aid schemes providing facilities for many more patients. Every little organization wants its own medical aid scheme, giving rise to escalating costs in administration, etc. They are the ones who want this amendment, and the hon. the Minister is allowing them to have an amendment that is going to adversely affect medical practise and is going to cause doctors to contract out in increasing numbers. For what reason must doctors stay contracted in? They have to send the account directly to the patient anyway, so they might as well contract out and still do just that. The pharmacist demands his money. He may sell goods to the value of R30 to one person. He will have invested thousands or even millions of rand in the pharmacy and he cannot delay his payments for 4½ months. I ask the hon. the Minister please to reconsider these provisions. He should allow the doctors, the pharmacists and all the related medical people to retain the right to send a copy of the account to the patient setting out what he has to pay and at the same time to send the account to the medical aid.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown objects to clause 2 of the Bill. I actually find it strange that as a doctor he should object to it.

It is because I am one.

My experience of the circumstances surrounding practice is that the arrangement whereby the medical scheme as third party actually takes over the financial responsibility from the patient has from an early stage been regarded by members of the medical profession as a negative factor in the doctor-patient relationship. The feeling among general practitioners—I do not know how long the hon. member was in general practice …

Ten years.

… has been that the degree to which that financial responsibility of the patient towards the doctor was removed from him and completely transferred to someone else could in fact be regarded as an interference with the good relationship between doctor and patient. If the patient demands the rendering of a medical service, he must also be able to compensate for it, even if he has the medical scheme standing by to help him. After all, it remains the contractual agreement between doctor and patient which promotes the relationship.

The hon. the Minister also made it quite clear that clause 2 was, among other things, eliminating defects which had been occurring and which had been causing problems. I suggest that clause 2 specifically will improve the doctor-patient relationship in general. I cannot see where in the clause the hon. member reads that the pharmacist now also has to send his account directly to the patient. I think hon. members may rest assured that their accounts with the pharmacist will be treated in the same way as in the past, i.e. if the required payment accompanies the prescription, the pharmacist will send his account directly to the medical fund for payment. After all, the doctor does not treat the medical scheme: He enters into a contractual relationship with the patient in respect of the rendering of a service. I also think it is no more than right that the patient should be informed in advance of the compensation which the doctor demands for his services. In that way, a greater measure of personal contact and mutual responsibility can be fostered. It is extremely important that a healthy doctor-patient relationship be maintained, because the demands of modern times are in fact tending to disrupt this fine relationship between patient and doctor.

Allow me to point out a few factors which are disturbing this relationship. First among these is the urbanization of our population. New circumstances have arisen with regard to the whole process of urbanization, such as the tendency to materialism which—let us admit it—is found among some medical practitioners as well. After all, there are those doctors who have a practice for the sake of the financial gain it brings them rather than because of their feeling of compassion for the patients. I want to read what the president of the Medical Council recently said in this connection at the congress of the Medical Association—

The whole history of the emergence of the medical schemes and benefit funds has to a large extent been responsible—by taking over the financial responsibility from the patient—for the fact that this good relationship between patient and doctor has to some extent been disturbed.

The final point I want to mention in this connection is the tendency of the media to try to criticize the medical profession at every opportunity and to present it to the public in a poor light. I want to refer to the recent case where a medical practitioner criticized his colleagues through the Press on the basis of alleged malpractices. This gave rise to a polemic in the Press, and the Medical Association saw fit to issue counter-statements. Accusations were made by both sides and letters were written to the newspapers. In the process, a negative feeling was created against the medical profession. The status of the medical profession was harmed, and ultimately, medical services and the patients of South Africa have been harmed by such conduct. Of course there are malpractices; of course this profession, like any other, has its weaker members. However, with a statutory body such as the Medical and Dental Council jealously guarding medical ethics in South Africa, we always know that this kind of practice will be restricted to the minimum, and the public of South Africa may accept that they are still assured of the best medical services in the whole world. Just ask any South African who has travelled abroad and has had to make use of medical services there; just ask them what their experience was. The president of the Medical and Dental Council said the following in this connection—

Such as those the newspapers were full of—

This is the position in South Africa. We must always try to preserve the good relationship between patient and doctor. This is one of the cornerstones of good medical services in South Africa. It preserves the sparkle and the attraction of the medical profession and does much to ensure that we are still able to recruit the right human material for this profession in South Africa today. Because this measure which is before us this afternoon contributes materially to the positive relationship between doctor and patient, I should like to give my support to this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in this argument I find myself on the same side as the hon. member for Parktown, strange as it may seem. I support the hon. member’s viewpoint completely. As at the moment, the doctor has the right to send a bill either to the medical aid scheme or to the patient, or both. Why is that right being taken away from him? It is now being taken away from him because, in fact, the hon. the Minister is overlegislating. Why can the option not be left in his hands? Despite all good reason, I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s reasoning in his opening remarks. I believe, as the hon. member for Parktown said, that the doctor can now submit his account to the medical aid scheme and that medical aid scheme has to pay that account within a certain period of time. Let us put it in another way. If the doctor submits the account to the patient, that will be giving the medical aid scheme possibly another 30 to 45 days’ grace and the doctor has then to wait for the money. I think that the doctors are in the same position as everybody else. They are rendering a service and they are entitled to be paid for that service as soon as possible. I believe, therefore, that we have to support the official Opposition here and ask for the status quo to remain. We must give the doctor the option.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their contributions, whether or not they opposed this legislation.

The hon. member for Pietersburg made some very good points. One of the most important was one which I also made in my introductory speech, and that is that we should perhaps go back more to the old doctor-patient relationship to see whether we cannot strengthen that. One of the factors which influence this relationship is the account. It can strengthen that relationship. If a person is treated and he receives a fair account, that relationship is strengthened. If he is treated and he does not receive any account at all, he will not know in any case what the doctor charged for the treatment. However, there is no improvement in the relationship. If the account is quite excessive, the patient can discuss it with the doctor. In this case, however, the patient will not know what the amount is until it is paid by the medical scheme.

The hon. member raised a few other very interesting points. I quite agree with him—I have already said so on occasion—that our medical services are not only among the best in Africa—we actually have nothing to compare with them—but also among the best in the world. I am sure the hon. member for Parktown will agree with me about this today.

120%.

However, the hon. member disputed that during the censure debate. I want to emphasize this important point. We want to be guided. I shall presently read hon. members some of the preliminary remarks by Mr. Browne of the Browne Commission. Perhaps hon. members will be more inclined to agree with me.

†Both the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for South Coast, I think, said that there should be an option. The problem with an option is that one does not get down to the administrative difficulty that exists at present where one account is sent to the scheme and one to the patient and then the patient also sends his account on to the scheme. The hon. member for Parktown mentioned the example of the hon. member for Hillbrow going on holiday and, because the doctor has been given the wrong initials, when he sends the account in to the scheme one of the hon. member’s relatives may perhaps have the amount in respect of that case credited to his account. That is one of the problems of the scheme.

*I want the hon. member for Hillbrow to correct me here. I can vaguely recall that when I introduced the amendment a little over a year ago, the hon. member for Hillbrow opposed it because he did not want the first account to be sent directly to the scheme. I vaguely remember that I then made the plea which the hon. member for Parktown made today, but we all make mistakes. I think it was wrong to introduce that amendment.

I think it is important that I should just read to hon. members some of the remarks made by Mr. Browne of the Browne Commission. This is not really a preliminary report. It is just a report to give me an indication of the progress that they have already made. It deals with the matter of medical schemes. This is an expert from what Mr. Gerald Browne has to say about the progress they have made—

This refers to the medical schemes. I can agree with the hon. member for Parktown. If Mr. Browne’s findings are different, then we are both wrong. I nevertheless think that 269 schemes are too many. They are still investigating this matter. Mr. Browne goes on to say—

That is in quotation marks—

This is very important—

The final paragraph, which is the most important, says—

That is exactly what I am trying to do today.

I think we must accept that the commission has already done a great deal of work at this early stage. Although this is not yet an accepted resolution of the full commission, I think the evidence is sufficient to be used in support of this specific withdrawal. I have not been able to convey Mr. Browne’s remarks to hon. members before, as I have only received the document during the last day or two, and then I did not have time to give the necessary attention to it.

I therefore ask hon. members of the Opposition to abandon their opposition to the clause and to allow it to be passed as it is.

The hon. member for Parktown quoted some interesting figures. One of the conditions that were laid down when we introduced this provision in the legislation at the time was that it was quid pro quo for the medical profession to contract into the schemes to a larger extent. This was supposed to bring us to a stage where there would actually be only one tariff. That was what I idealistically had in mind, but after receiving the necessary information from the schemes, it is clear to me that there has not been such a great rush to contract in. It would appear to me that what Mr. Browne says, on the basis of the information which the commission has already obtained, indicates that we should accept the clause as it is printed.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An amending Bill of this nature has been a regular institution for years now and therefore needs no introduction. This year it is aimed at amending two Pension Laws, namely the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1971, and the General Pensions Act, 1979.

I should like to furnish a brief explanation on a few of the clauses contained in the Bill.

The pension rights of the Vice-State President are similar to those of the State President, since section 15 of the Constitution Act is, with the necessary amendments and adjustments, also applicable to the Vice State President. It is, therefore, now necessary for section 17A of the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1971, which deals with the pension rights of the State President, to be made applicable to the Vice State President as well. This is being done by means of clause 1, in terms of which a pension payable in terms of the pension scheme for Parliamentary service and Administrators will be cancelled if the beneficiary is elected to the office of Vice State President.

Former members of a provincial council, the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Indian Council may, on appointment to the President’s Council, elect to become members of the President’s Council pension scheme. If they should elect to do so, their pensionable service for the aforementioned councils will be regarded as pensionable service for the President’s Council pension scheme. Clause 2 provides that the pension rights which a member had in terms of the pension schemes of a Provincial Council, the Coloured Persons Representative Council or the Indian Council shall lapse if his pensionable service is recognized in this way.

Section 15 of the General Pensions Act provides that a member of a State pension fund may, under certain circumstances, be declared to be a dormant member of that pension fund. On retirement such a dormant member is only entitled to the pension benefits he was entitled to on the day he became a dormant member. This is a very unfair arrangement, as a dormant member’s pension benefits do not increase during the period of dormant membership. The amendment in terms of clause 3 will provide that the benefits will grow at a compound interest rate of 6%.

Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a pattern developing in the House in respect of pensions measures in that for every one we oppose we support one. This measure we do support, not because it is part of the pattern, but in fact because we are in basic agreement with the principle of the legislation.

I believe that the principle contained in clause 1 is a very good one indeed. It is the principle namely that a person who is in public life shall not draw a pension and a salary simultaneously. I think this is a very good point. It does in fact remove an anomaly because we previously had a situation in which it was possible for somebody, for example the Vice State President, to draw a parliamentary pension plus his salary as Vice President and to be earning then—theoretically, of course—more than the State President himself, even though he was junior to the State President.

I think that although we remove an anomaly, it also seems that we have created one which we will have to look at again at some later stage. It seems now that we actually have a situation in which someone who was a former MP draws a parliamentary pension, then goes to the President’s Council, receives a salary and is also still paid a parliamentary pension. In this way a situation could be created in which the Vice-State President, who might have been a member of Parliament, could in fact be earning less than an ordinary member of the President’s Council. I do not know whether I have made this point clear. What it amounts to is that it disqualifies the Vice State President from receiving a parliamentary pension but not a member of the President’s Council.

Nevertheless, I agree with the principles. I believe it is a sound principle that someone who is in public life should not be drawing both a pension and a salary.

Clause 2 of the Bill is, I believe, also a good clause. Obviously someone cannot belong to two pension schemes simultaneously. We could have a situation in which he could, particularly if he was coming from Parliament, go to the President’s Council and then buy back pension under the old Act. This would have been a fairly good investment. I think this is an indication of one of the anomalies with which we are going to be faced with the introduction of the preservation and transferability of pensions rights. To a large extent we are going to have to deal with it on an ad hoc basis.

Clause 3 is, I think, a very good clause. We have no problems with it. I think it is good that where people leave money in pension funds they be paid a fair rate of interest. Whether 6% is a fair rate of interest in present economic circumstances is obviously a point that could be debated. I think, however, the principle is a very good one. It is certainly an improvement on a situation in which people have been paid no interest at all, or even on the situation which exists in some pension schemes where interest only amounts to between 2% and 4%.

With these few words we support this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has already outlined to us the background of this legislation, and the official Opposition has indicated that they support the measure. This legislation is in fact very self-evident and logical. The pension scheme makes provision for members of the President’s Council as well as for the Vice State President. They can now join the pension scheme.

However, there are a few problems that I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister, inter alia, at the request of the hon. member for Brits who unfortunately cannot be present this afternoon. The question that is being asked, is whether members of this fund and/or their families will be afforded protection if they should for example retire from the service or die before they qualify for a full pension. Then there is still another question. What is the position of members of the President’s Council going to be should their period of service be terminated before 7½ years are up, when seen against the background of the manner in which they become members of the President’s Council at this stage? For these people there is, therefore, a reasonably high measure of risk attached to this whole pension provision because of the fact that they have no security with regard to continued membership of that council. The same, of course, applies to members of this House. There are members here now—and I may possibly be one of them—and there were members in the past who as a result of this 7½ years qualification never reached the stage where they qualified for a pension. People who come to this House—especially the younger ones—often have to sacrifice a great deal by coming here. Very often they have to terminate benefits they have accumulated over a period of time and come here at very high risk with regard to obtaining a pension. Hence the request that as regards members of the President’s Council as well as members of this House, this problem should be investigated. I, therefore, ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to the investigation of the risk factor with regard to this pension for members of both these chambers.

The clause which provides for persons whose pensions will grow at 6% is a very logical one. I want to say immediately that I think the 6% is a very modest percentage if one takes into account that a pension scheme must make provision for a future capital sum to enable you one day to maintain the standard of living you are accustomed to. If you then find yourself in the position where you have to withdraw from a pension fund and then have to rely on an accumulation of only 7½% of the capital amount, you could perhaps encounter difficulties in future. The greatest asset or the largest part of the future estate of any salary earner, every person who is active in the economy of our country as an ordinary salary earner, consists of his pension. There are very few people who succeed in building up other assets besides those they build up by means of a salary. It was with this in mind that I remarked that the 6% accumulation is very modest and that one will have to keep a watchful eye on future developments with a view to adjusting this percentage to inflationary conditions in our country.

Because this is legislation which in my view is very logical, I gladly support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the official Opposition. We have studied the Bill before us and we see no difficulty with it. From this side of the House we shall therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for South Coast is in the House, because he often supports legislation which I introduce here. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Edenvale that problems in regard to pension schemes do arise. However, one cannot penalize a man who is entitled to a pension, who receives it and who then accepts a new position. If a person in the private sector receives a pension and he is offered another position, surely he cannot give up his pension merely to occupy another position. If someone qualifies for a pension it does not place an extra burden on the pension fund if, in addition, he also earns a salary. A lot of thought was given to this matter, and the feeling was that one should not change legislation simply in order to discriminate against a few people.

The hon. member for Springs raised an interesting point. It would seem that he has to deal with this type of case daily. He referred to the protection granted to members, which is, I feel, a very difficult aspect of pension schemes. There must be a qualifying period. A great deal of discussion and thought has already been devoted to this problem. We even thought about a scale according to which people, say for example people in the service of Parliament, could be included. However, I am not aware of any scheme in terms of which a person qualifies immediately upon entering the service. There is always the risk factor. Perhaps one had better turn to the private sector to cover that period. In my view the burden on pensions would be unbearable if a person should on the day of the commencement of his service, for example in Parliament, enjoy immediate pension cover. However, I undertake to look into this matter again. Pensions are not static and one must ascertain whether something cannot be done about them. For example, we have already acknowledged service in provincial councils for qualification here, but if something should happen to the person involved, he only receives half of the payment for the period he served on the provincial council. This is as far as we can go in regard to the recognition of provincial council service. As I have said already, there is always the risk factor when one enters the political sphere, but as regards pension schemes we must, after all, adhere to reasonable principles.

†The hon. member for Edenvale agreed with some of the other principles, also in regard to the dormant member who will receive 6%. This is 6% compound interest which, in my opinion, is not too bad. At least the principle is being introduced here. Perhaps at a later stage we can alter the 6%, but this introduces the principle because a person’s pension is not static and over a number of years may possibly be far less than he expected. I think therefore that this is a sound principle.

*I think I have now referred to all the points that were raised. I thank those hon. members who made a contribution and I also thank them for the support they have pledged to this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The ’seventies were marked by the collapse of several big township development companies, resulting in considerable financial losses to many individuals.

Then as now, all matters concerning the alienation of land on instalment were regulated by the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, 1971 (Act 72 of 1971).

In this Act, an attempt was made at the time to protect the interests of purchasers, especially when land which has been sold is attached by a creditor of a seller of such land, as well as in the case of the death or insolvency of the seller of such land.

After the collapse of several township developers, however, it appeared in practice that the existing Act did not afford purchasers of land the necessary protection, as the intention had been. As a result, the then Minister of economic affairs introduced a Development Schemes Bill in Parliament during 1977.

After the first reading of this Bill, it was decided to refer it to a Select Committee of the House of Assembly for inquiry and report, but because this Select Committee was unable to complete its inquiry during the 1977 session of Parliament, the Select Committee recommended that it be relieved of its task and that the subject of the Bill be referred to a commission of inquiry, consisting of members of the Select Committee.

The commission of inquiry was instructed, inter alia, to submit suitable proposed legislation in order to give effect to any recommendation relating to its inquiry.

In the course of its activities, the commission of inquiry found that it would not only be necessary to consider regulating legislation in connection with the sale of land, but that it would also be essential to formulate separate legislation to establish control over the handling of share blocks.

The commission came to this conclusion when it was found that rights of occupation in terms of share block schemes would continue indefinitely alongside sectional titles.

Arising from the finding of the commission with regard to the control of share blocks, the Share Block Control Act, 1980 (Act 59 of 1980), was passed.

Meanwhile the commission of inquiry continued its activities in connection with the formulation of the Alienation of Land Bill, in order to regulate all relevant matters in this connection.

This Bill is contained in the fifth and final report of the commission of inquiry, which was tabled on 26 January 1981.

At this stage, before dealing with the provisions of the Act, I wish to thank the chairman, Mr. A. A. Venter, MP for Klerksdorp, and the members of the commission for the enthusiastic way in which they approached and performed their difficult task.

I would like to mention the names of the members of the commission who were responsible for formulating the Bill during the final stage.

Members of the commission who are still members of this House are Messrs. T. Aronson, S. P. Barnard, F. D. Conradie, J. P. du Toit—at present the hon. Speaker of this House—S. S. van der Merwe, V. A. Volker and A. B. Widman.

Then there are also persons who stayed on as members of the commission, in spite of the fact that they were no longer members of this House.

Here I am thinking in particular of Mr. J. I. de Villiers and Mr. L. G. Murray, MC, who was an active member of this commission from the time of its appointment by the State President in 1977 up to the completion of its activities in 1980.

The first chairman of the commission was Mr. J. A. van Tonder, who held the office until his appointment as Commissioner General of the South Ndebele ethnic unit in 1979, and who was succeeded by Mr. A. A. Venter on 15 October 1979. Messrs. M. W. de Wet, H. Muller and G. H. Waddell resigned as members of the commission, and the latter two were replaced by Messrs. S. S. van der Merwe and A. B. Widman, who remained members to the end. Another former member, Mr. E. Louw, resigned when he was appointed as Administrator of the Cape of Good Hope. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to all the persons who have made a valued contribution to the draft legislation since the appointment of the commission. At the same time I must convey a special word of thanks to Prof. A. D. J. van Rensburg, of the Faculty of Law of the University of South Africa, for his valuable contribution to the activities of the commission.

The intention with the proposed Bill is to afford purchasers of land and sectional title units sufficient protection, through the introduction of relatively drastic measures, to prevent a repetition of the great financial losses which the liquidation of some of the property developers has caused in the past. The basic purpose of this proposed Bill, therefore, is the protection of the consumers, and specifically the purchasers of land and sectional title units. Since I do not intend to discuss all the various clauses in the Bill in detail, I wish to mention only the most important provisions of the Bill and their possible effect, mainly to show what measure of consumer protection they contain.

In the past it often happened that sellers of land on instalments sold land while that land was not at that stage registrable in the name of the purchaser concerned, because, for example, a particular township had not yet been proclaimed. This caused agreements of purchase to be phrased in such a way that the purchaser obtained no right to enforce transfer of the land to him, while unreasonably long periods elapsed after the signing of the contracts. This situation is now being rectified by the provisions of clause 6 (1), which provides, inter alia, that all contracts in connection with the sale of land on instalments must explicity specify the date or the event after which the seller will give transfer of the land to the purchaser. Together with this provision, clause 6 (4) contains the extremely important stipulation that the date or event referred to in clause 6 (1) may not be later than five years from the date of the contract. In order to carry this principle of protecting the purchaser to its logical conclusion, the purchaser has the right, in terms of clause 6 (5), to cancel the contract if for whatever reason the seller is unable to give transfer of the land to the purchaser after the specified date or after the event concerned has taken place. If the purchaser prefers to cancel the contract, he is entitled, in terms of clause 28, to reimbursement of all the amounts paid by him, as well as other additional amounts, such as interest.

In terms of the provisions of clause 7 of the Bill, all sellers of land which is encumbered by one or more than one mortgage and which is sold in terms of a contract are obliged to furnish to the purchaser within 30 days after the conclusion of the contract a certificate or certificates indicating the amount required by every mortgagee for the discharge of the mortgage bond or the release of the land from the mortgage bond. This clause also provides that if it appears from such a certificate or certificates that the amount owed by the seller to the mortgagee or mortgagees exceeds the price in terms of the contract between the purchaser and seller, that purchaser is entitled to cancel the contract with the seller within a period of 14 days.

†In order to grant further protection to the purchaser, clause 11 provides, inter alia, that if the owner or any intermediary fails to fulfil his obligations to a mortgagee or mortgagees, the purchaser or a remote purchaser may fulfil the obligations of that owner or intermediary. In such event, fulfilment by the purchaser or the remote purchaser shall be deemed to be fulfilment, to the same extent, of the purchaser’s obligations to his seller or of the remote purchaser’s obligations to each intermediary between that remote purchaser and the owner or intermediary, as the case may be. Payments as envisaged in clause 11 will of necessity have to be identified by persons making such payments to enable mortgagees to allocate such payments to the individual accounts. This will entail special accounting procedures by organizations such as building societies, an aspect which was fully discussed with the interested parties.

A significant and far-reaching provision of the Bill is contained in clause 20, which provides that those deeds of alienation which are defined in the Bill as “contracts” shall be recorded in the deeds office.

In consequence of such recording, the purchaser, if the land is sold in execution by a creditor of the owner or if the owner is insolvent, shall have a preferent claim against the estate of the seller, which claim shall rank in preference to the claim of any mortgagee whose mortgage bond is registered against the title deeds of the relevant land after the date of such recordal.

Linking up with these provisions, I would like to refer you to clause 9 (7) of the Bill. In terms of this clause it is deemed that a mortgagee has consented irrevocably and unconditionally to the cancellation of his mortgage bond or to the release of the land from his mortgage bond if the contract in respect of that land has been recorded in the deeds office prior to the date on which the mortgage bond or bonds were registered.

Another provision which will have a material effect on the present situation is found in clause 26, in terms of which no person shall have the right to receive any consideration of whatever nature in respect of the sale of land until such land is registrable and the relevant deed of alienation has, in certain circumstances, been recorded in the deeds office.

Exceptions to this prohibition are allowed where such consideration is paid into the trust account of a practising attorney or into the trust account of an estate agent, or where the purchaser is furnished with a guarantee issued by a banking institution, a building society or a registered insurer.

In terms of such guarantee all moneys paid by a purchaser are repayable to him if the land is not registrable or the relevant contract is not recorded within a period specified in the guarantee.

Finally, as far as the provisions of the proposed legislation are concerned, I wish to refer to clause 27 of the Bill, which enables a purchaser who has undertaken to pay the purchase price of land in instalments over a period in the future, and who has paid at least 50% of that purchase price, to demand transfer of the land.

However, such demand shall be subject thereto that, simultaneously with such transfer, a first mortgage bond be registered over that land in favour of the seller in respect of the balance of the purchase price.

It is apparent from the provisions of those clauses of the Bill which I dealt with that it was the intention to provide effective protection of the interests of purchasers of land and sectional title units, which protection would have been impossible without the implementation of far-reaching measures.

In conclusion I wish to emphasize that, in the framing of these drastic measures, meticulous care has been taken throughout that they do not unduly militate against the rights of other parties who have an interest in transactions of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for the exposition he has given today of the Bill and, particularly, for his kind remarks concerning those of us who had the pleasure of serving on the commission of inquiry over a number of years.

At this stage I should like, on my part, to pay tribute to the hon. member for Klerksdorp for the manner in which he, as chairman, enabled the commission to function overall and for his courtesy at all times in giving all members an opportunity to state their case and to try to assist with this very important measure.

Of the 39 organizations that commented on a draft Bill published in the interim, I should like to single out the Association of Law Societies for its contribution. It was very helpful at all times, particularly with regard to the legal aspects, implications and ramifications. After all, this is really a matter the responsibility for which lies in the hands of the legal profession and the agencies connected with the legal profession, particularly agencies such as the deeds registries. I think, too, that the Association of Building Societies played a very important role, as also the S.A. Property Owners Association with which I normally have somewhat of a problem, as the hon. the Minister of Community Development will know. I think it is significant also to state that one of the recommendations of the commission led to the drawing up of the Share Blocks Control Act which is an entirely new Act and which enables purchasers of flats—i.e. for residential accommodation blocks of flats—to obtain title and hence to get the maximum amount of protection possible, in fact almost as much protection as is enjoyed by those who actually get sectional title registered in their name. It is of course second prize, but nevertheless, since sectional title cannot be registered over a leasehold property, it is essential that a law be introduced to protect those people. As hon. members will know, the basic task of the commission was to deal with purchasers who had suffered along the line, purchasers who had bought stands in townships which were never registered because the provincial and other authorities had decided to put roads through those pieces of land without proclaiming such roads, purchasers who had bought from sellers who disappeared, purchasers who had bought from intermediary sellers who never took transfer and also disappeared or who, on other occasions, sold to remote purchasers who, in turn, could not be contacted. Sometimes there are even several such people involved. Even when one could trace those people, some of them had become insolvent. Hon. members can therefore see the enormous amount of detail involved.

The commission bent over backwards to ensure that people who purchased land did not lose their money or fall foul of organizations such as Glen Anil. In that débacle thousands of people lost a lot of money because of the insolvency affecting many townships in which that organization was active. Yet I think one thing stands out above all, and that is that one cannot really protect a person against his own folly. One can give him as much protection as one can in terms of the law, but if they are really stupid, do not look to their rights and do not read the contracts which are placed before them, it is very difficult to prescribe what a contract should, in fact, contain. What can one do if they are not going to read it, are therefore not going to understand it and are not going to take advice, even though they know that they are not sufficiently educated and should obtain the necessary advice. All in all, taking into consideration those people who will take notice, I believe that what the commission has achieved is to give them the maximum amount of protection.

I think I should just mention one or two of the omissions which the commission considered but were unable to deal with for one reason or another. The first one concerns land which is sold by the State, by the Department of Community Development or by a local authority. Although there was a strong feeling that people buying from the State should be protected, the commission was in the end deflated by the fact that the seller, being the State, the Department of Community Development or a local authority, was not likely to run away, and since its credit would also be good, it was thought that such a seller should not be involved in the same way as an ordinary seller would be involved.

The second consideration is one regarding the important 99-year leasehold. That, however, is also a purchase by way of instalments, and this Bill pertains to a purchase which involves more than two instalments over a period exceeding one year, as is stated in the definition of “contract”. So the system of 99-year leasehold falls into the category I have indicated. I think many of us would have liked to have seen 99-year leasehold included in this, even though it is under the auspices of the Department of Co-operation and Development, and therefore involves another department. The commission felt sympathetic and wanted to give these people protection. If hon. members look at the fifth and final report of the commission of inquiry, they will find a recommendation that this matter should not be forgotten and should be considered further. I hope this will be done.

I should now like to talk about some important changes which have been brought about and which I think the public would appreciate because it affords them a measure of protection. They are some of the features I should specially like to mention. The first feature is that the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, which has existed since 1971, only applies to individual people, in other words to natural people. The commission felt that it should be extended further, because private companies, of course, do not fall in the category of natural persons. Nevertheless, it is quite a common practice for private people, for example a husband and wife, to purchase land in the name of a company. The commission therefore saw no reason whatsoever why they should not get exactly the same protection as a natural person. I am pleased therefore that that distinction has been done away with in the Bill before us and that this has been brought about so that they do receive that protection.

I think that there are two very important changes that have been brought about that must be mentioned. The first change is in connection with the role of the building society as far as mortgage bonds are concerned because these societies, as mortgagees, hold bonds registered over property that has been sold. They were usually apart and there was no vinculum iuris between an actual purchaser and a building society because the building society registered its bond over the seller’s name. I think that we owe the building societies a debt of gratitude in this respect that they showed their preparedness to be involved in this and have now become so involved that a building society is now obliged to issue a certificate in regard to the balance of the amount owing on a piece of land at the time of the sale. The purchaser will therefore know with whom the bond is registered, what the outstanding amount is and what the instalments are. The building society also plays another important role. Once the seller and purchaser have notified the building society of the sale, should the purchaser who then sells the property to an intermediary or some remote person, go insolvent the building society will then be obliged to notify the original purchaser and the original purchaser will then negotiate if necessary with the building society before any sale in execution can take place in which case he would lose his rights completely or find that his home or his land has been sold over his head. The role which building societies play in this respect generally is a very, very important one.

One of the most profound developments in the sale of land is contained, I think, in clause 20, in so far as the deeds office and its role are concerned. I think we know that generally speaking the deeds registry has in terms of the law to register immovable property, namely land in respect of which there is a lease for 10 years or more. A deed of lease itself or an agreement to purchase is not normally registrable in law. However, this legislation before us, takes the advanced step of now providing that a deed of sale entered into between a purchaser and a seller has now to be registered in a deeds registry and this fact has to be noted on the original deed of sale. I think that this is one of the most important provisions ever to be introduced in regard to the sale of land. Obviously, Sir, hon. members will realize the implications of this step, firstly, to the entire legal profession and, secondly, to the whole of the estate agents profession; in fact, to anybody who buys and sells property. They will now have to draw up deeds of sale in such a way as to contain all the provisions laid down in clause 6 in regard to which the purchaser is protected in respect of every single item that can be covered and the registration will also act as a safeguard as far as all purchasers are concerned.

Let us look at some of the implications that emanate from this. In the first instance, there will be a fee. We feel that the fee that is to be laid down in terms of the regulations should be as low as possible. We do not want to impose additional fees and financial burdens upon people purchasing property, particularly in a market such as it is today when property is very expensive. We should like, therefore, to keep costs down as far as possible. I hope too that the hon. the Minister in bearing in mind the regulations that are to be drawn up will make the practical rules for the registration of such deeds of sale as simple and as cheap as possible in regard to the fees which a conveyancer or an attorney will be permitted to charge. I don’t know whether the hon. the Minister has given very much thought to the question of who the person will be who will have to draw up these deeds; whether such deeds will have to be drawn up by conveyancer or whether an attorney or an estate agent or a person with some professional qualification will be able to sign to the effect that the document was prepared by him so that such deed will be in a form acceptable to the deeds registry for the purpose of registration. Thereafter, having been registered, it will be registered against the title deeds.

There is a provision that if the seller does not register the deed of sale against the title deed within three or four months, I think it is, then 14 days thereafter the purchaser becomes entitled. Now, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has thought of the difficulty which the purchaser can experience. One must bear in mind that the purchaser does not have access to that title deed. It is provided in the Deeds Office regulations that when one lodges a deed of sale, one must lodge the bond and the deed of transfer, but what about the purchaser who does not have those documents? Provision will therefore have to be made to simplify registration as much as possible. These are very important provisions.

Another important provision I think concerns the Sectional Titles Act as it stands on the Statute Book today. The Sectional Titles Act involves the occupation of flats. We have enough trouble in that regard. I see that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is staring at me. He knows what the position is in regard to the occupation of flats and sectional titles. A little while ago we did amend the Sectional Titles Act in so far as deposits were concerned and to ensure that such deposits would firstly not be accepted until such time as registration had taken place. The position is that as a result of that amendment, we now ensure that those are not paid to—if I may use the expression—fly-by-nights who receive the deposits and then disappear.

The legislation now seeks to bring as many laws possible into one single Act to make it simple to understand and therefore it has to provide that the deposit is to be paid in trust to an attorney or an estate agent who has statutory trust accounts or that the deposit has to be guaranteed by a bank or other approved guarantor so that the person concerned does not lose the money. I think this is very important, particularly at a time when people are concerned with the occupation of flats.

We do not intend going into Committee on this Bill on the basis that every clause will be discussed. There may be one or two minor amendments; in fact, the hon. the Minister has some amendments. We do not intend having long discussions during the Committee Stage except to accept those amendments. That being the case, I should like to discuss some of the details contained in clauses which I think bring about a change in so far as the existing legislation is concerned. I should also like to deal with changes which have been brought about in general.

First of all there are the provisions dealing with the formalities. These provisions seek the protection of people who buy under a deed of sale. There are provisions dealing with the due date; the method of determining the date; the intermediary and the names that he has to supply; the amounts of transfer duty that have to be paid; the place where payments are to be made; the period in which the property has to pass over; and the right to accelerate payment. There are various other such provisions, but I shall not refer to all of them.

The interesting point is that if the seller remains in default, recourse can be had to a principal. The exact position in this regard has always been difficult to describe. Let us look at a commercial transaction. If there is a failure to honour an agreement in a purely commercial transaction, a fine or a term of imprisonment can be imposed. I am happy to say that with the exception of one case, to which I shall come back a little later, the Bill provides that the penalty will be the forfeiture of interest in so far as the seller is concerned. I think this is an adequate punishment because the seller will forfeit the interest until such time as the matter has been put right. There is of course also the right of the purchaser to cancel the transaction and to claim a refund of the money.

Clause 3 deals with the sale of land by public auction. The commission gave a lot of consideration to sales where property is sold on a deed of sale. The position is that when land is sold by public auction, the auctioneer must mention all the conditions of sale. He must have those conditions on paper, copies of which he must hand to the persons who intend buying. If they then buy the property, they buy it on those terms. They therefore know beforehand what they are in for. The Bill now provides that where there is a straight sale and the conditions mentioned have been fulfilled, one does not have to comply with the provisions of the Act. However, when it is a sale of land on instalments, the provisions in connection with a sale by auction will be applicable, if there are more than two instalments over a period of one year.

I now wish to deal with the question of a five-year limit being placed on the sale itself. Normally I think the period was up to 10 years, and sometimes there was no control. I do think it is a good idea that the deed of sale should provide that if transfer is not affected either on the date that is stipulated in the agreement, or not later than five years from the date on which the contract was entered into, the purchaser has the right to cancel the agreement. In this connection one must bear in mind that township registration can take anything up to five years, and also that stands in townships are often sold before the actual registration takes place. I can mention the PWV complex in the Transvaal where, at one time, development of 60 townships was frozen because the province was contemplating building roads through the area but people who had bought land there had to continue paying their instalments and never knew whether they were going to get transfer or not. Now, in terms of this legislation, people would at least have a chance to make up their minds, and in this connection I think the five-year limit will give assistance to the purchaser in the sense that he will know that he will not have to go on paying and paying, without knowing whether he would ever get the land transferred into his name.

Clause 7 deals with building societies, to which I have already referred. I believe they will play an important role, and I think we should thank them for their co-operation. We should simply trust to their good nature that the fees that they are entitled to charge—and I do think they are entitled to charge fees because of the certificates they will be furnishing at the request of the purchaser and which the seller is now obliged, in terms of the law, to furnish to the purchaser—will be kept as low as possible and within the administration cost set-up of the building societies themselves. The intermediary will not be able to get away with it this time. He must notify his intention within 30 days, otherwise the purchaser can cancel the agreement, and that will be the end of the contract. As far as the mortgagee is concerned, protection is given by him to the purchaser, and he must give 21 days’ notice before instituting proceedings for any reason. Similarly, in the case of a remote purchaser, he can demand the outstanding account and certificate that is required.

In terms of clause 13 a penalty is imposed if the copy of the contract is not sent to the purchaser within 30 days.

I do not intend dealing with the provisions of clause 15 as it is clear for everyone to see that certain provisions are null and void. One cannot have certain provisions that are not for the protection of the purchaser, nor can the purchaser legally, in terms of the agreement, waive some of the rights that are entrenched in this particular legislation. It is also necessary for the purchaser to receive statements of account and the seller is now obliged to submit them within 30 days, and before the end of each 12-month period. The statement of account must give all the details with regard to the charging of interest, otherwise there is no liability for payment.

I have already dealt with the question of registration at the Deeds Registry, and I hope the amount involved will be kept as low as possible.

With regard to the question of insolvency, there is one point which I am not happy about but which I do not think I can do anything about, and that is that the purchaser, in that case, either has to pay the balance of the purchase price, or else all the costs, including the endowment and the costs of the insolvency, and that amount could be far in excess of what he actually requires.

The question of the provisions of chapter 2 now applying to sectional title is one that will assist the purchaser as we now retain a provision that is laid down in another law. In terms of this provision, when a purchaser has paid 50% of the purchase price, he is entitled to demand transfer from the seller against a bond to be registered against the property, or likewise if he tenders payment of the balance of the purchase price.

I conclude by saying that I believe that we can assist people in so far as this very important provision is concerned. Housing for the private sector has become one of the most important factors in the market today where there is a shortage of accommodation. We must at least ensure that people who buy accommodation are assisted. It is enough of a hassle to obtain a stand on which to build, but once having obtained it, to then lose it because of some irregularity in the law or because of some action on the part of the seller against which the purchaser has no protection, I think is really a tragic situation. I sincerely trust that this legislation will go a long way towards giving people the right to obtain homes, to build homes and to own their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about the Bill at length. I should like to thank the hon. member for the friendly words that he addressed to me. Furthermore, I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the friendly words that he addressed to the members of the commission and to myself as well.

The legislation under discussion flows from the fifth and final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Development Schemes, which was tabled in January this year. It was a unanimous report, and at this stage I should also like to point out that that report was unanimously approved after very thorough consideration. As the hon. member for Hillbrow said, there was one clause that he did not feel too happy about. However, the hon. member had ample opportunity to propose alternative considerations, but did not succeed in doing so.

The Share Block Act was passed as a result of the fourth interim report that was tabled here in the House last year. This is an Act that has been in operation since 1 January this year. I am also very pleased to be able to say that the industry and the private sector welcomed this legislation enthusiastically, and I trust that the legislation that is being considered here in the House this afternoon will be equally welcome and will be of great value to both the industry and the public, i.e. the consumer.

To round off the terms of reference and the business of the commission, which is now being done here, I should just like to mention that throughout the proceedings we experienced the most enthusiastic co-operation and willingness and that each member of the committee made a contribution towards the legislation that we are discussing here this afternoon. I should also like to thank each hon. member on this side of the House for his contribution and support. In the first place I should like to refer to you, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say thank you very much for the contribution you have made, as the member for Vryburg, towards the activities of this commission over the years. I should also like to refer with gratitude to the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Langlaagte, the hon. member for Sundays River as well as the hon. member Mr. Aronson. I have a great deal of appreciation for their contributions as well as for the co-operation and support that I received from them throughout. The hon. members for Hillbrow and Green Point did not serve on the commission from the very outset. However, they did immerse themselves in the activities of the commission and did in fact also make valuable contributions towards the commission. I thank them too for this.

Two former members of the House, Mr. Lionel Murray, the former member for Green Point and Mr. Jac de Villiers, the former member for Wynberg, also produced very meritorious work on the commission. I also want to place my appreciation for their contributions on record here this afternoon. Furthermore, the commission was privileged also to have at its disposal the services of Mr. P. J. Badenhorst, who occupied the position of secretary. I also want to thank him for his contribution on behalf of the commission.

The commission was also privileged to have at its disposal the services of two advisers in the persons of Prof. A. D. J. Van Rensburg and Advocate D. G. Bräsler. I should also like to mention here that they too made valuable contributions throughout. On behalf of the commission I should also like to express a word of gratitude towards Mr. F. N. Vermeulen and J. H. Coetzer of the department, for the competent services that they provided in preparing the report and the Bill.

As hon. members will notice, a particularly far-reaching provision is being introduced to the alienation of land in the case of specific contracts, viz. a form of registration or recording of contracts at the deeds office. This is in fact a totally new system that is being introduced now, and in this regard I should also like to express my special thanks to the Chief Registrar of Deeds, Mr. Murdoch, for his enthusiastic co-operation. I have already expressed my appreciation towards the other advisers and those involved in the commission during the discussion of the Share Blocks Control Act, and I should like to reiterate the hearty thanks of the commission towards each one who has made a contribution towards the activities of the commission since 1977. I should also like to thank Mr. J. A. Van Tonder, the former member for Germiston District, who chaired the commission until 1979.

On page 19 of the final report there is a list of names of witnesses and bodies that submitted commentary to the commission, and hon. members will agree with me that there are quite a number of them. I am convinced that very extensive consultation took place. Apart from the oral evidence that was heard by the commission to substantiate the written submissions, the commission also thought fit to conduct further discussions with specific interested parties. For instance, on various occasions discussions were held by the commission and by representatives of the commission with representatives of, inter alia, the Association of Law Societies—and I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow with regard to the mention of the Society of Advocates—the Association of Building Societies, the Institute of Estate Agents and the Chief Registrar of Deeds. I want to extend my hearty thanks to these bodies and their representatives for the contributions which they made, as well as for their interest in this legislation. Particularly extensive consultations were conducted before this Bill was printed. The Sale of Land on Instalments Act, which has been amended from time to time, has been in effect for more than 10 years already and it is now being repealed by this legislation. At the same time, it is also giving effect to the instruction to consolidate legislation with regard to the sale of land in so far as it offers better protection to purchasers of land. Consequently, this Bill also repeals the Formalities in respect of Contracts of Sale of Land Act, of 1969.

The terms of reference of the commission were, inter alia, to investigate problems experienced by purchasers of land in taking transfer of land, in spite of the provisions of the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, particularly in the case of the insolvency or the liquidation of the seller, and to investigate the desirability or otherwise of consolidating legislation concerning the sale of fixed property with a view to granting greater protection to purchasers.

In its final report the commission submitted a Bill in which certain far-reaching measures were proposed, in the confidence that it would provide adequate protection to purchasers and to avoid a repetition of the adverse effects which the insolvency and liquidation of certain property developers have had on purchasers of land. With a view to this, it is being determined, inter alia, that a purchaser is being granted the right to request a certificate from any mortgagee with regard to the amount payable by the purchaser to such a mortgagee on the discharge of his mortgage bond or the release of the land from the bond. Certain purchase agreements that qualify as contracts, will be able to be recorded at the deeds office, and such recording will then mean that the purchaser will have a preferent claim on the estate of the seller and will therefore also rank in preference above the claim of any mortgagee whose bond is registered after the date of the recording of such contract. This is a new procedure that is being introduced to the Republic.

If any additional bond is in fact registered over the land after a contract has been recorded, it is deemed that such mortgagee has unconditionally and irrevocably consented to the discharge of the land, without being able to lay claim to the bond first being settled before the property is released from the bond.

A remote purchaser of land, i.e. a purchaser who has not purchased the land directly from the registered owner of the land, can obtain transfer of the land by payment of an amount as defined in the Bill. If a seller of land then fails to comply with his obligations, a purchaser can effect payment directly to a former intermediary or even to the mortgagee to reduce the obligations of the last purchaser in terms of a contract. Such payments can then in fact be accepted as a reduction of the obligations of the purchaser concerned with a view to transfer of the land.

As the hon. member for Hillbrow indicated, apart from this, there are still a number of other provisions that are aimed at ensuring as far as possible that the interests of purchasers of land are protected as carefully as possible.

I just want to refer to a few remarks and recommendations in the report of the commission. The hon. member for Hillbrow has already referred to the 99 year lease system. These recommendations appear in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the commission’s report, and I too just want to emphasize them once again. One aspect, apart from that mentioned above which could have caused considerable problems, was the problem of a date in a contract on which a purchaser would be entitled to take transfer of the purchased land, and the land was not yet registrable under a separate title deed. The commission’s recommendation in this regard to lay down a period of five years, was considerably influenced by the fact that it usually takes a very long time for the township development to reach that stage where individual properties do in fact become transferable to a purchaser. The commission was aware of the fact that it takes up to seven years and longer for an area to be proclaimed and was in fact concerned about this fact. Apparently the proclamation of towns takes an unnecessarily long time and in paragraph 23 of its report the commission does in fact make a serious request to the people concerned to do everything possible to ensure that this period of time be shortened considerably.

A particularly important addition to the Act is contained in clause 24, in terms of which a ban is imposed on the receipt of remuneration on the sale of a property by the seller of a property or unit until it is registrable and in the case where a contract has to be recorded, until the date on which the contract is recorded. The commission was convinced that this provision would also offer greater security to purchasers, without disturbing the free market mechanism.

Clause 27 refers to the rights of a purchaser who has partially paid the purchase price of land. This is a provision that comes from the Insolvency Act. According to the Insolvency Act, this provision is not applicable to the State, and it has been transferred in this exact form. There were requests, inter alia, by the United Municipal Executive, that this provision should not be applicable to local authorities either. In the spirit and intention of the Bill to indemnify the purchaser against problems with regard to transfer in the case of insolvency, I should like to propose that in this specific clause reference should also be made to a local authority, and that is why I shall move an amendment accordingly during the Committee Stage.

I should like to express the confidence that with this legislation, together with the previous two pieces of legislation that have already been dealt with and which flowed from the five reports of the commission, this commission has now fulfilled its terms of reference. I should like to make a request of those concerned in the industry to grant their co-operation so that this legislation will achieve its objectives in the interests of the public of South Africa.

I want to say at the same time that this legislation is complicated, and I also want to suggest that before a purchaser signs such a contract, he obtains professional advice with regard to the provisions of such a contract. This is of value particularly with a view to the further formalities that must be complied with after a contract has been drawn up in terms of this legislation.

It was an honour for me to serve as a member of the commission, and as its chairman since 1979.

Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers were members of the commission and I do believe that this House and, I think, also the people of South Africa owe those members and also the other members of that commission a great debt of gratitude for what they have achieved over a long period of debate and discussions. As the hon. the Minister has said, this legislation before us had its origin some years ago and has been the subject of much debate. I think we are all in debt to those hon. members. With the exception of the hon. the Minister, I am the only one who has spoken in this debate, who was not a member of the commission, although so far there were two former hon. members of the NRP in this House who served on that commission. So I am pleased to know and I am pleased to be able to say that my party also made a contribution in this regard.

I am very pleased that this legislation is now under discussion, because I think we are all aware of what has occurred in the past decade when many people lost an awful lot of money. Many of them could ill afford to lose that money which they invested in property, land, houses, etc., projects in which they placed their hopes for a prosperous future. Because of faults in the law, as it stands at present, many of those people lost a lot of money. That was the reason for the commission being appointed, but the commission had quite a number of difficulties to face. One of the major difficulties which had to be overcome involved the Formalities in respect of the Contracts of Sale of Land Act which, incidentally, will be repealed once the legislation before us is passed. If the formalities were not strictly complied with, the conduct of the sale was null and void, which led to a number of situations severely prejudicial to the purchaser, and this had to be corrected.

Another difficulty that was experienced was that the Sale of Land on Instalments Act had so many loopholes that a seller could, in many ways, manipulate it to the detriment of the purchaser. These are the difficulties which I am led to believe the commission had to overcome. The commission therefore decided to amend the Formalities in Respect of Contracts of Sale of Land Act, and the relevant provisions one finds, as the hon. the Minister has said, in clause 2 which, hon. members will note, is subject to the provisions of clause 28. The effect of these provisions is briefly to give the purchaser rights to recover interest and reasonable compensation. There is also the provision that if a contract of sale does not comply with the formalities, it shall not be void but shall be valid ab initio, providing the purchaser has performed, in full, the terms of the contract. In this way, I believe, the purchaser of land has far more protection than he has had in the past and cannot, we hope, be manipulated, as has been the case in the past.

The sale of land on instalments is covered in Chapter 2, the basis of which is the Sale of Land on Instalments Act of 1971, which has been amended in such a way as to plug all the loopholes which were in that Act, as well as introducing a number of new provisions. The hon. members who spoke before me have gone into these in some detail, but basically this chapter applies when land is sold on the never-never, and the document which is normally called a deed of sale will, in future, be called a contract. Hon. members will notice that “contract” is defined in clause 1 as involving a sale in which more than two instalments are paid over a period exceeding one year. Chapter 2 also covers the sale of a unit under the Sectional Titles Act, or any land or interest in land to be used mainly for residential purposes. I think it is very important that this should have been covered, because these days one finds so many people investing in flats, etc., under the Sectional Titles Act.

I do not intend to go through this Bill clause by clause, because this has been done very well indeed by previous speakers. The hon. member for Hillbrow did, however, refer to clause 20, which I believe is quite a novel clause, although I believe that it is similar to one that exists in Zimbabwe at the present time. This is a provision that entitles the purchaser to insist on the recording of a contract in the Deeds Registry, and here I am referring to the contract a person enters into when buying a property on instalments. I believe that when this was debated there was a great deal of argument about this clause, because firstly it was felt that the act of recording would give the purchaser a real right which he really does not have merely as a purchaser. Secondly, for that very reason the Registrar of Deeds was not favourably inclined to do the recording. Thirdly, there was some difficulty which would have arisen if the contracts were actually to be cancelled. However, fortunately for us these difficulties were overcome and we now have the result in clause 20 which, I believe, can be put into operation and which we in these benches believe to be a very good provision.

I believe that clause 26 might cause a lot of real estate agents concern because basically this clause provides that, in regard to any contract to do with property sold on instalments, no money can change hands until such time as the property purchased is registerable and a contract has been recorded. I do believe, from what I read in the Press, that there are some real estate people who are worried that the salesmen are not going to get their commission because they fear that this means that the commission can only be paid when the property is actually transferred from the seller to the purchaser which under a sale-on-instalments contract could take quite some years.

It is the same as when one buys a house.

From what I gather and judging by what the hon. member for Hillbrow has said, this will not be the case because, once the contract is registered with the deeds office, I assume the salesman can receive his commission.

If one buys a house, the commission is only paid when the deed is registered.

Yes, the hon. member for Hillbrow says that, when one buys a house, the salesman only gets his commission when the house is registered in the name of the purchaser. I want to repeat that the fear expressed was that, under some of the sale-on-instalments contracts in the past, the actual transfer of the property to have it registered in the buyer’s name only occurred some years afterwards. The fear now is that the salesman will have to wait until that registration occurs in the future. What I am saying is—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me—that the way I read clause 26 this is not the case. It is when the contract is registered in the deeds office that the salesman can receive his commission.

Although this Bill, like most others, is not perfect, we in these benches do believe that in general it should be supported because it is a great improvement on what the position was in the past. It does give, especially to the purchaser on the never-never, a number of rights and safeguards which, hopefully, will prevent the debacle which occurred some years ago when we saw the liquidation of large property development companies such as Glen Anil and others. For these reasons we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to place on record my sincere gratitude towards and appreciation of the chairman of the commission, Mr. Venter, and his predecessor Mr. Van Tonder and I want to say that it was a privilege for me to have served on the commission together with them. Not only was it a privilege, but it was also very informative. I cannot but mention again, Mr. Speaker, that it was also our privilege to have you as a member of the commission.

The fifth report of the commission is very definite evidence of the in depth study that was made, of years of reflection and also of indepth consultation with experts on a highly complicated matter. I believe that the result, in the form of the legislation that is before us at the moment, is a good result of the work that the commission carried out. I am tempted to say that the commission recommends ingenious solutions to problems that were not easy to overcome. The fact that we reflected and consulted on it for such a long time, shows how complicated these questions were and how difficult it was to find satisfactory solutions to them. Passing this Bill will definitely be a milestone in the history of legislation regarding rights to fixed property and, more specifically, purchasing fixed property by instalments. If this Bill works as the commission intended and hoped it would work once it becomes law, this piece of legislation will one day be known as the Magna Carta of the purchasers of land on instalments. As the hon. the Minister has already said, some provisions of the Bill are relatively far reaching in nature. Consequently, they have far reaching implications for the township development industry and in fact for trade in fixed property in general. I can even go so far as to say that this legislation is introducing a new, revolutionary dispensation with regard to this industry. It affects the rights and obligations of the seller as well as those of the purchaser in a variety of ways. It will probably take the industry some time to absorb all of this, to master it and to adapt to it.

The most important provisions of the Bill have already been spelled out for us by the hon. the Minister and have also been elucidated further by other hon. members. Consequently, I do not think it is necessary that I myself should elaborate further on the provisions. I rather want to point out certain consequences of the legislation, the implications thereof for the development industry and how it will effect the interests of those involved in it. In the first place, it may be necessary for us to recall what the purpose of the legislation is and what the aim of the commission’s inquiry was. Of course, this is related to the terms of reference of the commission. Briefly, the terms of reference of the commission were—To inquire into the problems, which despite the provisions of the Sale of Land on Instalments Act of 1971, are still being experienced by persons who have purchased land and for some reason or other cannot obtain right of ownership, or suffer patrimonial loss in respect of payments they have made in terms of an agreement relating to such land.

The essence of the terms of reference, the general premise, of the commission was therefore the protection of the interests of the purchaser. The various interests, rights and obligations of the purchaser and seller are not identical in all legal systems; they vary. Sometimes the emphasis falls more strongly upon the rights of the purchaser; on other occasions it falls more strongly upon the rights of the seller. In legal terms we talk about caveat emptor, i.e. the onus rests upon the purchaser to protect his own interests himself. This can also vary to the other extreme, that of respondeat venditor, which means that strict requirements are laid down, on the other hand, with regard to the way in which the seller is expected to act.

As I see it, this legislation undoubtedly bears the stamp of the respondeat venditor approach, because the emphasis falls more heavily upon the obligations of the seller, and the rights of the purchaser. What do we want to protect the purchaser against? The purchaser must be protected against the usual risks that accompany purchasing land on instalments, for example the exploitation of purchasers by unscrupulous developers and particularly against the inability of the developer-seller to comply with the contract due to financial problems. The commission decided at an early stage that it did not deem itself obliged to protect the purchaser at all costs. The commission did not consider absolute protection desirable. We cannot protect him against his own foolishness, against his desire to speculate and his gullibility when it comes to accepting obligations. Consequently, the commission attempted to ensure the purchaser of one of two things: either he can obtain transfer of the land that he has purchased and for which he has paid, or repayment of what he has already paid towards the purchase price. In other words, there would be no financial loss in such a case. To put it briefly, it means security of transfer or his money back.

Mr. Speaker, I said I wanted to deal briefly with a few of the consequences or implications of this legislation. In this regard one must take into account that whereas we tried to protect the interests of the purchaser in the past, it was usually done in various ways. The most important way by means of which an attempt was made to protect the interests of the purchaser in the past, was by means of conditions of sale when towns were established. It was in the form of a condition which the Administrator laid down that no erf could be sold as a result of a subdivision, transferred or built upon before certain requirements had been fulfilled. This was done in order to protect the purchaser from loss, but as we see when we look back at history, it did not work efficiently. When we wanted to introduce this protection to this legislation, we looked for other methods, and as the hon. member for Klerksdorp pointed out, it is actually a combination of control over the cash flow to the seller, control over the seller making further bond commitments, measures to prevent bond commitments with regard to the property exceeding the purchase price or the balance thereof and then this new important provision of recording contracts at the deeds office. If we take this as our background, then we must try to determine what the possible consequences or implications of this legislation may be. We can accept that it will take a considerable time before the full implications of this legislation will filter through to the general public and before they will know exactly what their rights and obligations are. A fair amount of ignorance will undoubtedly exist amongst the general public for a considerable time with regard to these new provisions and consequently there will also be uncertainty with regard to exactly what the rights and obligations of an individual are. This may also lead to confusion here and there and possibly also to attempts to mislead the public and this can also affect uninformed people adversely. That is why I believe it is desirable for the legal profession, the law societies and the estate agencies to make a very thorough study of this legislation at once and to devise methods of bringing it to the attention of the general public, particularly to those who are professionally involved in the sale and transfer of fixed property.

Therefore, we must also expect there to be growing pains in the application of this legislation. We cannot lay claim to having an absolutely perfect solution to the problems here. We did the best that we could, but it is also possible that there may still be problems. It is also possible that loopholes will be discovered that we will then have to close by means of supplementary legislation at a later stage.

A further consequence of this legislation which I think could be a pity is that the small developer may find it more difficult to manage in the future. It would be a pity if this should happen. One does not want the development industry to fall entirely into the hands of monopolies. I think it is an inevitable result of some of these provisions that in future a closer relationship will develop between the developer and the bodies that finance him with regard to his development. The provisions of the Bill make this unavoidable.

There is another implication of this legislation which I should like to dwell on for a moment. I am afraid that a degree of legal uncertainty will continue to exist in one respect. It is in connection with the prickly question of provincial authority, particularly provincial authority with regard to imposing conditions of establishment to control the sale of erven in a town and in some cases to prohibit it. As far as I am concerned, one shortcoming in our report may be the fact that we were unable to manage to obviate this problem too. I think it is a pity, and it is a personal disappointment for me. I had hoped, and also made every effort in the hope that we would obtain security of justice for once and for all in regard to this question, in this investigation and in the legislation that would flow from it. The question is whether it is intra vires and in fact ultra vires the statutory power of the provinces to impose such restrictions. Furthermore, the question is whether, if an administrator does in fact impose such conditions, they are in fact enforcible. Unfortunately, it was not possible, and I am afraid that the sword of uncertainty will continue to hang over us for a long time and that we will not know what the enforcibility of such conditions are.

We are also going to have this anomoly now—I think it is a good thing that we should take note of this—that it will be quite justifiable in terms of the legislation that we are dealing with now, to sell erven in a proposed town even before any application has been made for the approval thereof—there is nothing that prevents this from happening—whilst the provincial administrations concerned will be able to go ahead laying down conditions which, although they might be perfectly regular according to this legislation, will in effect make such transactions invalid and even illegal. It is unavoidable that whilst this degree of insecurity of justice exists, it will also often lead to litigation.

I think it is a good thing for me to conclude by pointing out to the House the relevant paragraph in the report, because I think it is important enough to put it on record in Hansard too, apart from it appearing in the report. On page 15, as part of paragraph 43 of its final report, the commission reports as follows—

These are the conditions that a provincial administration imposes which determine that erven cannot be sold before certain specific conditions have been complied with. In fact, we have also received serious requests that we should simply solve this problem by prohibiting all sales from towns until such time as the town has been proclaimed, but we did not see our way clear to accepting such a drastic, far reaching measure. The commission then goes on to say—

I am quoting this in order to associate myself with the idea of this commission, i.e. that we had to place a finger on the shortcomings, on the lack, on the great deal of insecurity of justice that prevails, and also to support the idea that more initiative must be shown by the department or departments concerned with regard to this matter, and also to have this aspect of the matter investigated.

I hereby express my support for the legislation under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all members who took part in this debate for their constructive contributions. It is clear that the hon. members, most of whom served on the commission themselves, seriously grappled with the problems which underlie this legislation, and that we have a well-considered piece of legislation before us.

It is very easy to sum up the objectives of this legislation in simple language and without wasting words. Several hon. members have pointed out today that the essence of the legislation is the protection of the purchaser, and especially the protection of purchasers against the adverse effects of the liquidation of property developers or against cases of insolvency.

When I was confronted with these five reports on my desk earlier this year and realized that I would have to handle this complicated piece of legislation, with all the legal technicalities involved, in this House this year, I felt rather like the cleaner who was working in the pharmacy when the telephone rang. He picked up the receiver and said, “Hallo.” The voice on the other side asked: “Have you got any permanganate of potash?” The cleaner answered: “Sir, when I said ‘Hallo’, I said everything I knew.” [Interjections.]

Thanks to the very thorough work done by the commission, and incorporated into their five reports, I was fortunately able to get a good grip on this legislation. I therefore wish to congratulate the commission on its work, which was of a very high standard throughout. In particular, I wish to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp, who was the chairman of the commission, for his willingness to give advice at all times and to see to it that I was properly informed with regard to this relatively complicated technical legislation.

Several speakers have discussed aspects of the legislation this afternoon and have also explained the considerations on which the various clauses in the Bill were based. The only question I wish to refer to at this stage is the one asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked some questions in connection with commission. Commission remains, of course, at all times a matter of agreement between the seller and the agent. For that reason it does not have to be incorporated in this Bill in the way suggested by the hon. member.

*The fact is that there was a high degree of consensus about this legislation. Several hon. members referred to this. There was consensus, not only in this House, but also between the parties that were consulted. The legislation was published for information and comment. The comments that were received were then thoroughly processed, and all interested parties were consulted. For that reason, this piece of legislation is indeed a measure which is based on a high degree of consensus. It is intended to afford protection to purchasers with regard to the defects which existed in the Act and through which purchasers of land were made vulnerable in cases of liquidation and insolvency. It also affords protection to the purchaser with regard to land speculators, as well as sellers who often try to manipulate purchasers, even to mislead them and bring them under a false impression.

We have many examples—and indeed the commission also referred to many examples submitted to it—of purchasers of land who wanted to invest hard-earned money in this way and who were eventually robbed of their income as a result of economic upsets or circumstances beyond their control.

As some speakers also said, the legislation is not intended to inhibit normal market forces or to stifle the economy further with unnecessary red tape and technical measures. To come back to the remark made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, I wish to say that it is not the intention to burden the purchaser or the seller of land with any further costs that are not necessary, but rather to afford purchasers of land the necessary protection, while keeping to a minimum the interference and cost and the additional burden to the purchaser and seller and to transactions.

I believe that the legislation must now be given an opportunity to prove its effectiveness in the market. The commission has already proved, through the previous statutory amendments proposed by it and also through the success which the Share Blocks Act has already achieved, that it has done work of a high quality. One may hope, therefore, that this legislation too will serve its purpose. The hon. member for Sundays River also said that one might have to come back later to correct certain deficiencies in this legislation as well, but I think we must now give the legislation a change to prove its effectiveness in practice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I wish to move to clause 9 is in fact a very small one, one which is not going to change the meaning of the clause in any way whatsoever. It is simply that I do not believe that very good English has been used in this particular clause and I therefore wish to tidy up English usage. I refer in particular to clause 9(1)(c) which currently reads—

It is an old principle of the English language that one does not end a sentence with a preposition. If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I understand that Winston Churchill, during the First World War, sent a message to one of his chiefs for some purpose and ended a sentence with a preposition. The chief thereupon wrote back to Winston Churchill pointing it out and saying how incorrect it was to end a sentence with a preposition. Churchill’s reply to this was that this was arrant pedantry “up with which he would not put”. Therefore, in order that this sentence should not end on a preposition, I accordingly move—

This therefore means it would then read—

I submit that the sense is exactly the same, but that it is simply better English.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment improves the clause and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

This, too, is merely aimed at improving the text and bringing the Afrikaans wording into line with the English.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

This is one of several amendments of which I have given copies to the Opposition. In reality it is merely an improvement of the text.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the matter I raised in the Second Reading debate in regard to this clause has escaped the attention of the hon. the Minister, but I should like to know how we are going to get over a certain difficulty. This clause provides that the deed of sale must be registered in the deeds office within a period of three months. If it is not registered within that period, the purchaser has the right to cancel the contract within 14 days or he can in terms of clause 20(1)(ii) apply to the registrar to have it registered. In terms of subsection (2) the registrar concerned shall do a number of things, and, apart from endorsing the deed itself, he must also endorse the title deed of the property. When one lodges the deed of sale for registration, one must of course simultaneously lodge the title deed, but where is the purchaser going to get hold of the title deed which belongs to the seller, and how is he subsequently going to effect registration?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who asked the question had an opportunity to serve on the commission where all these clauses were discussed in detail. If he as a member of the commission is unable at this stage to furnish an immediate reply to that question, which is a technical problem, he is definitely expecting too much of me to be able to do so here. In addition I stated earlier that problems would undoubtedly arise, problems which one could theoretically anticipate at this early stage, and that if it should subsequently appear necessary to come forward with amendments in order to suggest improvements, it would be considered.

Mr. Chairman, I think we will have to look at the regulations carefully to provide for such a situation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise again the question I raised in the Second Reading debate because I do not believe that the hon. the Minister understood what I was getting at. This clause reads—

1. (a) such erf or unit is registrable; and
2. (b) in case the deed of alienation is a contract required to be recorded in terms of section 20, such recording has been effected.

If an erf has been sold but has not been registered—and it may take some months for it to be registered—the salesman who sold that erf is not going to get his commission until such an erf is registrable. That is the question that has been raised with me. I personally believe that this is one way of protecting the buyer’s money. I just want this to be made clear. Secondly, there is the case of a contract being recorded. This relates, if I read it correctly, to a sale of property on the “never-never”, as it were, with a person trying to pay off enough of the capital amount so that he can eventually take transfer. In such a case the salesman can get his commission for having sold the property once such a contract is registered at the deeds office in terms of section 20, in which case he would probably have to wait just as long as he would under normal circumstances when property is being transferred. There are therefore these two aspects which need clarification.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reiterate that I see clause 22 as a provision relating to the deed of alienation, and that it is certainly not the intention that the commission should be affected by this because the commission is paid according to an agreement between the seller and his agent. If there should be any real technical problems on this aspect I shall ensure that the legal experts look into them. The matter can then be rectified in future.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is right for the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to have brought this to our attention. I frankly do not think that there is a problem, and I have looked at the matter again carefully. I do not think that we actually discussed the commission payable to the estate agents. I should just like to make this simple point. Firstly, no person shall receive any payment—and that includes an estate agent—unless two things happen. Firstly, the land or the unit, as the case may be, must be registrable. In other words, it does not have to be registered, but it must be registrable. That means two things. If it is a unit under sectional title the sectional title register must have been opened. If it is a unit of land in a township, the township must have been proclaimed. These two things must therefore have happened. The next thing that must happen is that the deed of sale must be registered at the deeds registry. It is therefore clear that the estate agent cannot receive his commission until it is registrable, and necessarily registered. In any event, it must still be registered at the deeds office.

We also have to look at the next clause which provides for the exception to this, namely that it can take place provided the money is paid in trust to an estate agent or an attorney, or there is a banker’s guarantee to secure that amount. I therefore think the full translation of this would mean that the estate agent would have to wait. The money can be paid either to an attorney or to the estate agent in a trust account, and is then paid over when the deed of sale is registered in the deeds office.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This clause refers to the rights of a purchaser who has partially paid off the purchase price of the land, and provides that in specific contracts a purchaser, after having paid off 50% of the purchase price, may demand transfer against registration of a mortgage bond over the land which shall not be more onerous or more detrimental to the purchaser than the provisions of the deed of purchase. This provision in the Bill was taken from the Insolvency Act. In the Insolvency Act the provision was not applicable to the State, and in the spirit and intention of chapter 2 of this legislation it is correct that the clause should not be applicable to a local authority either.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, since this clause provides for this legislation coming into effect on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette, and since either the whole or part can be proclaimed, is there any reason why we should not proceed to the proclamation of this without delay? Does the hon. the Minister foresee any delay at this stage? Does he foresee any eventuality that can hold up the proclamation of the whole of this piece of legislation that is now before us?

Mr. Chairman, I think that matters have been delayed long enough. The intention is to get this Bill through all its stages as quickly as possible and to ask the State President to enact the legislation forthwith.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Assistance consisting mainly of loans is granted to individual farmers by the Agricultural Credit Board from funds which, annually, are especially appropriated for this purpose by Parliament. The amount which may be so appropriated depends on certain factors and consequently fluctuates from year to year.

It may happen that unpredictable conditions in agriculture, for example serious droughts, necessitate granting more assistance to farmers than the amounts estimated in advance and appropriated by the Government for the rendering of assistance in a specific financial year. A shortage of money may therefore make it extremely difficult to grant essential assistance to farmers. The generally prevailing economic position in which the country as a whole finds itself, also plays an important part.

Repayment of loans and interest on such loans is at present being made to the State Revenue Fund, and it appears that the amounts recovered are consistently in excess of the amounts paid out. For the period 1 April 1971 to 31 March 1980 the amount recovered exceeded the amount spent by approximately R30 million.

There is an urgent need for a fund which makes continuous granting of assistance possible, and for that reason it was decided, after discussions with the hon. the Minister of Finance, to establish a so-called “rotating fund”. The draft Bill makes provision for the establishment of such a fund, to be called the Agricultural Credit Account, into which the moneys appropriated by Parliament and loans and interest thereon which may be recovered, shall be paid. In future assistance to farmers in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, will be financed from this account, and such assistance should therefore no longer be dependent solely on moneys appropriated for this purpose by Parliament.

Judging from the amounts spent in the past on assistance, and the amounts recovered, the fund ought in due course to become self-sufficient, which will ensure continuous assistance to the farmer. The establishment of the account should, on the other hand, considerably alleviate the burden on the Exchequer as well.

I just wish to mention that the Agricultural Union was consulted in this connection. Not only do they fully support the envisaged measure, but they welcome it as a measure which entails great benefits for the farmer. As hon. members can see in the Bill, the Agricultural Credit Account will be strictly controlled and the method which is used to determine possible assistance is in no way being affected by the proposed amendments. Unexpended balances will be invested in the account which, by way of the interest earned on such investments, will provide a further source of revenue for the fund. However, provision is also being made for the payment into the State Revenue Fund of amounts approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

The Bill also contains consequential amendments and amendments which, as a result of rationalization and the repeal of a certain Act, have become essential. In addition provision is also being made for the measure to be deemed to have come into operation on 1 April 1981, with retrospective effect therefore, to coincide with the financial year as laid down by the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, in order to facilitate the administration of the fund.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister at once that we on this side of the House shall support the Bill. But I do want to raise a few points in order to share our thoughts with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

In the first place it is interesting to see that for the period 1 April 1971 to 31 March 1980 approximately R30 million more was recovered than was spent. I find this interesting, for during the past few years and during the past year in particular the number of applications for assistance has increased tremendously. Moreover, the largest percentage of those applications could, for various reasons, not be granted. So it happened that during the year 1978-’79 for example assistance was rendered to 2 704 applicants in which an amount of approximately R18,5 million was involved. During the following year assistance was granted to approximately 3 500 farmers. This number has, therefore, increased more than twofold and the amount which was paid out more than threefold. Consequently one can expect even greater pressure to be exerted on the Minister’s department in future and that he is going to have to render assistance, to an ever increasing extent particularly in certain areas and for our agriculturalists in certain age groups.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware that this House as a whole is in earnest about encouraging young people to take up agriculture. It is in this respect in particular that large amounts of money will be needed. Coupled to that is the fact that it is going to be necessary to consolidate uneconomic units so that the young person will be in a position to create an economic unit. In that respect, too, ever increasing pressure is going to be exerted on that department. That is why I say that, when one examines the aims of the department, I believe that it will be a pleasure for anyone in or outside this House to support this Bill today.

The funds being controlled by the department are being used in particular to assist that farmer who is unable to obtain funds in any other way. Let me add that the Agricultural Credit Board has a responsible task, for it must be satisfied that the applicant, if it is possible to assist him, will have the necessary skill, ability and, perhaps one could add as well, perseverance to use those funds judiciously. Moreover the Act stipulates very specifically that the Agricultural Credit Board may render financial assistance subject to specific terms and conditions. Long-term loans may be made available for the purchase of land, the making of improvements to land and the purchase of livestock and implements. However, such loans are granted only to applicants who, as I have said before, do not have access to other credit facilities owing to circumstances beyond their control. Consequently the interest on those loans is, relatively speaking, very low, viz. 5%. For that very reason it is essential for the department of the hon. the Minister and for his board to ensure that they discharge the obligations which are being placed on them meticulously, for we—and by that I mean all hon. members in this House—do not want it ever to be said that the taxpayer’s money is being used to assist people who do not really need assistance or who use the money they receive injudiciously. That is why it is best that the board should fulfil its functions to the letter.

The proposal is being made in the Bill that where assistance is rendered for soil conservation works or for the construction of waterworks, the interest will in future be calculated at the standard interest rate. The question arises as to why a higher interest rate—I take it that this is a higher interest rate—has to be charged. I would say the answer is that in this case we are not dealing with people who have to receive immediate assistance owing to problems or circumstances beyond their control. Those works they are going to carry out are merely going to increase the value of their property in the long term and that is why they must be prepared to pay at least a reasonable interest rate for the loan which was granted to them.

The essential change which is being proposed in this Bill entails the creation of a new account. For example, more than 3 500 loans were granted last year, and these in aggregate exceeded an amount of R54 million. That is why it is clear to me that the scope of the work of the Credit Board is tremendous. Consequently it is interesting to note that although 3 500 loans were granted, the number of applications received were certainly far higher. I do not know what that figure is, but I would assume that the number of applicants was at least twice as high as the number of loans granted. In any event, an investigation must be instituted to determine whether that farmer is in fact entitled to that loan. Consequently, if the number of applications over the past two years—I have referred to this earlier—have doubled and the amount of money which has been paid out has trebled, I wonder whether this hon. the Minister is in a position today to try to explain to us what the future holds for this industry. Is this number of applicants, i.e. the necessity for additional assistance, going to increase at the rate of the past year or two? If this is in fact going to be the case during the next four or five years, then we are going to require amounts of money for which this amount of R54 million seems completely inadequate. Since the problem appears in that case to be that there is going to be an increasing number of applications, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister can explain to us how he foresees that the revenue and the interest which is going to be recovered by this credit account will cause the account to increase in size. I cannot understand this, for I think that the pressure on the department will be so great that the little interest which the hon. the Minister is going to recover will not be nearly enough to make provision for the future as well.

At this stage I also want to say that we on this side of the House are in favour of this credit account. I believe that it is going to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of being able to budget for the future in a proper way. His department is, more than any other department, aware of the demands which the future is going to make on us in this regard. Consequently it makes complete sense to me that the account should be administered separately. In addition we hope that the hon. the Minister will try to call in the assistance of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to ensure that there are adequate funds in that account so that we are able to make full use of the auxiliary measures which are available.

I want to refer to a few of these measures. We know that there has in the past, as far as I can recall, been a shortage of funds when it comes to money for the construction of houses for workers. Am I correct in saying this? I believe I am. We have conducted a considerable number of debates on manpower legislation during this sitting. We know that new requirements are going to be set for the worker in the agricultural industry if we want to maintain the quality we have to maintain. We know that if we want to keep the skilled workers in the rural areas—and it is necessary that we do so—we shall have to provide that worker with the best possible facilities as far as housing, electricity, water, etc. are concerned. Consequently I say that the amounts which are being set aside for that purpose will have to be expanded considerably.

In the second place we also know—in fact, we have said this in this House for three consecutive years—that in those border areas which are becoming depopulated owing to terrorism, or economic terrorism, it is necessary to purchase farms and consolidate them, as well as to encourage young farmers to seek a livelihood there. However, I know that the hon. the Minister has a shortage of funds in that regard as well, or am I perhaps wrong? [Interjections.] I shall be pleased to be informed that adequate funds are in fact available, and then the hon. the Minister could also perhaps tell me on another occasion precisely to what extent he was able to utilize those funds in order to achieve the objective we discussed in this House a few years ago.

I come now to the final point I want to raise. We have supported the legislation up to now, but with regard to land which is purchased as a result of a mortgage which is called in, therefore almost compelling the hon. the Minister as it were to purchase it, as is being provided for in section 37, I have placed an amendment on the Order Paper. I am of the opinion that we are responsible for examining the way in which the funds are being utilized. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister intimate his concurrence with the amendment, for it does not deprive him of any right. All we are asking is that the Minister should make a submission to this House at the end of every year or on occasion of the Parliamentary session so that we can see exactly what lands have been purchased and at what prices.

We support the Bill with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react to the hon. member for Wynberg, and also express my gratitude for the support the official Opposition has given to this legislation. This once again demonstrates that all of us in this House have the desire to ensure that all is well with our farming activities and that our rural areas are prospering.

The hon. member wanted more clarity on the provision of funds. I believe that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with the necessary replies to his questions. The excellent idea which is in my opinion being linked to the provision of funds in future is that this is to be with retrospective effect as from 1 April 1981. Consequently all outstanding debts and interest owing on such debts will now go into this fund. Furthermore we should not lose sight of the fact that the State is still able to make a contribution. However, I want to associate myself with the idea expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, viz. that a reserve fund is now being established for the farmer. This is the ideal of the farming industry, as has already been demonstrated by the fact that there are reserve funds in various other sectors of the farming industry. I consider this to be a tremendously progressive step in the agricultural industry, for we are now making the agricultural industry independent so that it is able to determine its own priorities.

As has already been indicated in this House this afternoon, an amount is being allocated. It is true, however, that circumstances beyond the control of any person—-beyond the control of the department as well—occurred during the course of a financial year. This could give rise to priorities that had already been determined having to be reconsidered and to shifts of emphasis with regard to priorities being necessitated.

During the past few years certain things have emerged in the emergency grazing areas and disaster districts which I should now like to point out. During the 1979-’80 financial year the amount needed for fodder was R15,296 million, while R11,8 million was needed to purchase means of production, R15,6 million to redeem debt and R5 million for the purchase of land. The aggregate of all these amounts was more than R54 million. During the subsequent financial year, which ended on 31 March this year, fodder required R28 million, which is almost double the amount for the previous year, whereas the amount required for land purchases was R29 million, whereas the amount of R13 million was required for debt redemption. Means of production in turn cost R11 million. These figures emphasize the fact that fluctuations occur which are impossible to determine in advance. These fluctuations are mainly due to natural conditions, etc. A large portion of the amount to which I referred was spent in my constituency, too, and I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for that here this afternoon. If we did not receive this assistance we would be experiencing a far greater depopulation of that rural area than has already been the case. Consequently I also want to express my gratitude to the Department of Agricultural Credit and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, as well as to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who, as I personally know, did a great deal of work in this regard.

I have already indicated the way in which these sums of money were spent. They were to a large extent utilized for the purchase of land and for the means of production, for the redemption of debt, as well as for fodder and housing. The part played by the Department of Agricultural Credit in respect of the task of keeping the farmer on his land and the assistance which is being offered, is not easy to calculate but it certainly cannot be overestimated.

Furthermore I pointed out that more than R50 million was spent between 5 December 1978, when these emergency measures took effect, and in trying to keep and to re-establish the farmer on his land in only one region of our country. Financing by the Department of Agricultural Credit has in the past always been very precarious. As a result of circumstances beyond the control of the department the position arose that the farmer who required financial assistance urgently in order to purchase land often had to approach a department for assistance which did not have any money either. Now it is unfortunately true that when land becomes available for purchase, irrespective of whether or not its price is uneconomical—and for an uneconomic farmer this is perhaps an opportunity which comes once in his lifetime—he has to contend with a situation in which, as has happened again this year, land purchases are frozen, as a result of which he forfeits his opportunity. The big farmer or even some organization which is not at all interested in farming as such—for whom a farm may only be a convenient place of recreation for weekends or holidays —then purchases that land. That is why it is essential that agricultural credit should not be linked to this country’s economy. In most cases in which the farmer is faced with financial problems this happens specifically when the country’s economy is perhaps not flourishing either. Then he requires assistance urgently, but owing to the country’s economy, assistance from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is specifically curtailed during such times.

The farmer in the rural areas keeps the whole infrastructure there going and it is specifically the average farmer, whom I am referring today, who is an asset to the community. It is true that many of the large farming operations and companies convey their agricultural products with their own means of transport, and unfortunately they also make their purchases there where they sell their agricultural products. In contrast the average farmer, he who cannot afford a truck and consequently has to make use of another transport service, whether the Railways or a private contractor, buys his products locally and in this way keeps the schools, the churches and the whole community there going. Consequently we must never underestimate the role of the average farmer.

The building up of a separate reserve fund for the Department of Agricultural Credit, in which the reserves may continue to rise by way of the repayment of the amounts, affords the department the opportunity of being able to determine its priorities itself and possibly determine in advance where that need is most urgently felt. The demands which are being made on the department are increasing every day. The hon. member for Wynberg quoted figures up to 1979-’80. However, I could just mention that during the subsequent year, viz. from 1 April 1980 to 3 March 1981, the amount of R54 million rose to over R93,6 million. If one examines the applications to the Land Bank, one will not find all that great an increase in the number of applications. However, what is of importance is the increase in the amounts for which applications are being made. When one examines the applications of the Land Bank since 1971, when a total amount of R62,4 million was allocated, the amount for 1980 was almost R190 million. These demands, and here I want to agree with the hon. member for Wynberg, can only become greater in future. In the present economic situation, with commercial bank interest rates between 16% and 18%, it is impossible for the agricultural sector to borrow money on short-term credit facilities. The interest rates are too high and consequently the farmer must increasingly have recourse to his own financing at interest rates which agriculture can afford. This he can receive only from the Department of Agricultural Credit and from the Land Bank.

That is why it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation. This is legislation which has come at a very appropriate time and which could make a great contribution towards future development of the rural areas and towards keeping the farmer there. Consequently I want to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as to the hon. the Minister for the initiative they have taken with regard to this legislation, so that it could be introduced here today and I trust that it will be to the benefit of farming as a whole and consequently of our country and nation as well.

Mr. Speaker, in the inevitable absence of 75% of our agricultural group, it is a great pleasure for me to pledge our support for this Bill.

I listened with interest to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and I must react to something he said, i.e. that agriculture is prospering. I cannot simply allow that statement to pass. These improvements in respect of agricultural credit are essential, for the fanners need help and the cause of this is the mess in which the Government has landed the agricultural industry over the years. [Interjections.] The emergency situation, one could almost say, in which the agricultural industry finds itself at present, is due to the Government’s neglect of the farmers and of the small farmer in particular. [Interjections.] Consequently it is imperative that the agricultural credit system be remedied, strengthened and improved. Accordingly we support this Bill. It is clear that the need to grant more financial aid to the farmer stems from the total incompetence of the Government which has led the whole agricultural industry into a crisis for years now. The farmers of South Africa are in future still going to reply to this conduct of the Government, this maladministration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Durban Point for supporting this Bill. I am sure that during his Budget Vote the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will deal with him as regards the accusation he has made that the South African agriculture finds itself in a crisis as a result of the maladministration of the Government. This is as far from the truth as one has seldom ever heard.

Ask the farmers.

One good demonstration that this is not the truth, is that agriculture in South Africa has over the past three decades produced at a growth rate of 2,6% per annum—and this is not in money value, but in bulk or volume value—in contrast to an increase of a mere 2,1% in the total population. An agricultural industry which is responsible for such an achievement, i.e. an ability to grow during the three decades under this Government at a rate which is considerably higher than the population growth rate, is in my opinion not testifying to any kind of crisis and even less to maladministration on the part of the Government.

It is not a negative growth rate as the NRP is indicating.

I shall now come back to the Bill.

Why are the rural areas being depopulated?

The rural areas are specifically being depopulated because the agricultural industry in South Africa is so dynamic and because the competition between the 80 000 farmers is so strong. In economies throughout the world where the agricultural industry is very strong, depopulation of the rural areas is taking place at an even greater rate than in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is clear that 75% of the agricultural group of that party is not present here today.

The incorporation of section 20A in the Agricultural Credit Act is in complete harmony with the philosophy in accordance with which the NP Government formulates its economic policy and applies it in practice. The Government believes in the free enterprise system, and the State intervenes only in the economic forces which regulate the development process to make allowance for regional differences in growth potential, for the fact that First and Third World economic systems meet each other in South Africa, and for the recognized axiom which applies throughout the world, viz. that the primary sector in the economy, for example the agricultural and mining industry, inherently grow slowly and serve as a basis for sound continued development of the secondary and tertiary sectors.