Mr. Speaker, my use of the word “crime” here in this House on Tuesday, 29 September, was in no way intended to be a reflection on the business of this House, but in so far as it was in fact considered to be such a reflection, I offer my apology.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have debated this Bill very fully during the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage and I believe that in this, the Third Reading, we have to spell out what we believe has happened during this process and what the results of the passing of this Bill are going to be. Hon. members will remember that we moved at Second Reading that the Bill be put before a Select Committee of Parliament. We did this because, firstly, we did not believe that there was any urgent rush to pass this legislation. This legislation is based on the report of the Steenkamp Commission and that report was put before the State President in 1967. In March 1967 it was reported on and only now, suddenly this session, a Bill was introduced and is being rushed through Parliament. What purpose is being served by the sudden urge for action to get the Cooperatives Bill on the Statute Book of this country? We have been accused by hon. members on that side of the House of being anti-farmer because we wanted to delay the passing of the Bill by sending it to a Select Committee. That was one of the accusations made against us. How much more, then, must the Government be anti-farmer seeing that they delayed the passage of legislation in this connection by 14 years? Only 14 years after the report has been submitted has legislation been introduced in this House.

Organized industry and commerce have many reservations about this Bill and they have made this abundantly clear. They have spoken to members on this side of the House and to the agricultural and other groups on that side of the House. They have spoken to the Government about this particular Bill because they believe that it does not stick to the package deal that was originally agreed upon between agriculture and the private sector with Governmental help. Despite that, however, this Bill has been introduced, admittedly with some alterations, but relatively minor alterations, and is being steamrollered through the House by the NP.

Steamrollered?

Yes, steamrollered like most legislation that the Opposition opposes in this House and where the NP uses its tremendous representation in this House to steamroller a Bill through. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the package deal because we have had a clear message about package deals this session, both in terms of the Status of Ciskei Bill and in terms of this Bill. I should therefore like to say to people generally that they should watch very carefully what they do when they try to negotiate a package deal with the Government. This Bill honours the package deal more in the breach than in the observance of its provisions. Let me briefly refer to three of the things that were prominent in the package deal but which have no place in this Bill at all. First of all there was market-related interest rates. Secondly, there was the liaison committee. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the hon. the Minister to give formation to a liaison committee, as agreed upon in the package deal, in this Bill. In the White Paper there was no mention of this particular aspect of the package deal either. Thirdly, there is a further situation that has been created, and that is the extension of the automatic lien right of co-operatives. These three things are definitely in contradiction of the package deal.

There are other features, but these features nevertheless indicate that the legislation which is now at Third Reading is hurried and ill-considered. I want to refer to clause 146 of the Bill, a clause to which I proposed certain amendments relative to firms of auditors, amendments which were identical to amendments proposed by an hon. Minister in another Bill that was before the House at that stage. Yet my amendments were rejected. The Government then realized what it had done and, when the Companies Amendment Bill was debated, they voted down that particular amendment to the Companies Act.

Secondly, there is something that only came to light today, and I find that this is even more extraordinary. On today’s Order Paper the third Notice of Motion is the introduction of the Income Tax Bill by the Deputy Minister of Finance, and one of the objectives of that Bill is to repeal section 170 of the Co-operative Act, 1981. I wonder if this is not an all-time record, Sir. Even before this House has passed this Bill, there already is a motion on the Order Paper to repeal one of its provisions. I do not know what the reasons for this are. All we have is the Notice of Motion that was before the House. However, Sir, is it not an extraordinary situation that before a Bill has even been passed, another Minister is already repealing a provision of that Bill? If there ever was an indication of ill-trust and hasty legislation, I submit that that is, and I predict that there will in due course be more amendments to this Bill. Indeed, I believe there will be numerous amendments to this Bill in the years to come. I do not believe that this Bill is going to bring to an end the unhappiness that has existed between the private sector and the co-operative movement over a number of years. This unhappiness has been in existence for 20, 30 years, and one would have hoped that the Bill now before the House, would have made an end to it. However, it is not going to be so, because the principles of free enterprise are being tampered with in this Bill, certainly with good intentions and with noble objectives, but the big question is whether this Bill will bring about cheaper food in South Africa. I do not believe so.

Mr. Speaker, we are very grateful that we have now reached the Third Reading of this important Bill. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central alleges that this Bill is being steam-rollered through Parliament, I want to differ with him. This legislation has been pending for several years already, but as a result of circumstances which frequently prevail in Parliament, sometimes as a result of the time factor, this legislation had to stand over until this year. However, here we now have a well-considered Bill and I doubt whether there has recently been any other legislation which has been the subject of so much consultation with the agricultural sector and also with the other sectors as this one was. Naturally, this legislation will have to be amended in due course. As a matter of fact, what legislation has ever been piloted through Parliament to which amendments have not had to be made? We are not living in a static situation. Circumstances change from day to day and changing circumstances result in legislation having to be amended from time to time. No Act agreed to by this Parliament can remain unchanged for ever.

If the hon. member alleges that the Government deviated from the package deal, I want to refer him to the hon. the Minister’s speech in the Second Reading in which he explained carefully how this package deal came into existence. However, we do not now have the time to argue that aspect again and I do not intend to do so. I just want to point out that after the package deal was made, certain sectors benefited from it while the agricultural sector has not yet benefited from it at all. We are lagging behind as far as that package deal is concerned. That is why the South African Agricultural Union urgently requested that this legislation should not be postponed any longer. We have now made a package deal, but we cannot enjoy its benefits. That is why this legislation must be placed on the Statute Book. It is high time, and that is why we are very glad that we have already reached this stage.

I listened peacefully and calmly to the arguments advanced here, including those of the Opposition, in regard to the Cooperatives Bill. It became very clear to me that there are extremely confused ideas, especially in the ranks of the Opposition, as to what co-operatives are. In this debate it became clear to us that they do not have the background as far as the entire co-operative system is concerned. It is clear to us that they do not understand the system. The co-operative as an economic institution is part of the private sector. It irks me every time people refer to the co-operative as though it were not part of the private sector, because the co-operative is part of the private sector. It is part of the free capitalistic system. Anyone who wants to deny this, does not know the economic system.

Why can it not be seen as part of the free capitalistic system? Why do people try to make out that it is a kind of socialistic system? What is a co-operative? A cooperative is an agreement between members of an industry who want to promote their own affairs because individually they do not have sufficient bargaining power and because they have become aware over the years that they are being exploited by the non-co-operative sector. I can mention many cases where the farmers in this country were exploited by the non-co-operative sector and where it was only after the entry of the co-operative to a market that there were reasonable, competitive prices in the industry.

Allow me to mention one example. Here in the Western Cape the industry which supplies chemicals for agricultural purposes is a very important industry. A few years ago we became aware that enormous profits were being made by the private dealer in chemicals at the expense of the farmer. We ascertained that profit margins of up to 300% were not unusual. What happened when the co-operative sector entered the chemical industry? The prices and profit margins immediately dropped, not by 10% or 15%, but by 100% and 200%. This is an indication of the fact that the co-operative movement plays an extremely important role in this country not only for the sake of the farmer but also for the sake of the consumer, because when the farmer’s inputs increase, consumer food prices must inevitably rise.

A co-operative has a unique composition. A co-operative member has a particular interest, which differs from that of the ordinary shareholder in a public company. It is sometimes said that the co-operative does not have a profit motive. However, the co-operative makes it possible for its members to produce on a profitable basis. Through the co-operative one naturally promotes the free capitalistic system in the sense that it becomes possible for so many individual entrepreneurs to continue to engage in the industry.

The co-operative renders subsidized services to its members, and I could enumerate a whole list of such subsidized services which are rendered by the co-operative. However, the co-operative cannot render such a subsidized service unless it also makes a profit. Where does the co-operative get its profits from? From its members of course. But the co-operative cannot act without the consent of its members, because its actions must be approved by the members at the annual general meeting. At the end of the financial year the co-operative then announces that it has for example made a profit on the business it has carried on with the members of the co-operative. It then asks for a part of the profits to be ploughed back in the form of a deferred bonus fund, because that is how capital has to be generated. The co-operative has a problem when it comes to the generating of capital in the sense that its shareholding is not very popular. The values of shares in a cooperative remain standing at their nominal value. They are not freely negotiable on the stock exchange. One cannot make a profit from co-operative shares. However, the cooperative can borrow money from the Land Bank.

A charge of monopolization was brought against the co-operative. However, a cooperative cannot become a monopoly. Its members will not allow it to become a monopoly, and they have absolute control over the co-operative.

At the request of my Whips I must now conclude, but in conclusion I just want to say that today is a good day because we are causing this piece of legislation to be piloted through Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated, we in these benches support this Bill because we feel that this is a consolidating measure. It is also a measure to keep abreast of developments within the co-operative movement that have taken place in recent years.

I think it would be as well just to describe, to a certain degree, the role that cooperatives have played in the development of so many of the rural areas in this country. It must be recalled that when co-operatives were initially formed to meet the marketing requirements of a large section of the agricultural community there were no marketing and servicing facilities available. The result was that it was only the formation of the co-operatives, in so many areas, that gave rise to the future development of those areas. I think that is a factor that must not be lost sight of. I say that because it is from those humble beginnings that the cooperative movement has reached its present stage of development in this country.

I think that a factor that has made it so essential to have this legislation passed at this stage, is the fact that organized agriculture has been requesting it for a number of years. It is therefore not only in the interests of the agricultural community to have this legislation passed, but also in the interests of the whole food-producing system of this country.

I would indeed like to comment on a certain facet of the Steenkamp Commission’s report. I am thinking of the question of competition between co-operatives. I think it would be a sorry day indeed if it were accepted that there should be no competition of any kind between co-operatives. I would earnestly suggest that the principle of competition between co-operatives is not something that should be shied away from.

A great deal has been said with regard to the package deal and I think one must accept the spirit in which that package deal was entered into and the result that came out of it, because I think that it is in that package deal that so many of the privileges the co-operatives enjoyed in the past were conceded in the interests of the overall commercial world.

In conclusion I should like to say that we on these benches accept the fact that the co-operative movement is now a vital component in our whole commercial structure in this country. What is more, it has an extremely important role to play in the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for the support he and his party have pledged for this Bill all its stages. I think I am right in saying that there has been a great measure of consensus among all the parties in the debate so far that firstly, the new Bill is essential and secondly, that it is good legislation. It is a pity that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has now displayed so much aggressiveness. One gets the impression that he is never satisfied with anything. In the first place he accused us of delaying this legislation for 14 years. Then in the same breath he accused us of steamrolling the legislation through. Sir, he makes a habit of performing an egg-dance in this House. I think it is time that someone told him what Langenhoven said: “ ’n Mens moet nooit met jou rugkant na ’n man aankom nie, want hy mag dink jy lyk alkant so.”

I think this Bill symbolizes the long struggle of the farming community to establish an orderly and disciplined instrument by means of legislation, with which the farmer can overcome his human and economic problems. Although in many respects the legislation is not new legislation, it is indeed a means by which the farmer can obtain a marketing system to sell his products in an orderly and profitable way. The Bill has the effect of transferring the marketing function, including the speculative benefits, which were previously in the hands of the dealers, to the producer. Although the co-operative legislation has in many regards intercepted many of the farmer’s problems, it has also established a business organization in which the farmer has received an administrative share. The co-operative legislation has already given thousands of farmers the opportunity to sharpen their initially inadequate knowledge of business practices and on the basis of guidelines contained in the legislation, to develop into skilful businessmen, who are now being placed in a position with the aid of the new legislation and the many amendments to it, to serve the interests of the farming community to the maximum.

The passing of this Bill is without a doubt a very important event in the interests of the farming community in South Africa. This legislation remains the basis of the cooperative movement in our country. There can be no doubt that the new legislation has remedied shortcomings which existed in the old legislation. The value of the cooperatives is not always obvious, but the progress of the agricultural industry and the resultant prosperity of the farming community in the country has not been through happenstance. If this legislation is passed, it will to a large extent ensure that the progress which the fanners in South Africa are going to experience will be the result of this good co-operative legislation.

In the Committee Stage there was a great deal of discussion on the question of what a co-operative practice is. It was clear to me that there was a great deal of uncertainty on this aspect on the side of the official Opposition. However, I got the impression that those hon. members are not completely unwilling to admit that the concept of “co-operative practice” is a very dynamic concept. The co-operative industry is alive and growing, and I have no doubt that one of the most important characteristics of this legislation will be that it will guarantee co-operative development. The basic principles and precepts of co-operatives have once again been well and truly confirmed in this legislation. When saying this I want to reaffirm the idea expressed by the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate, i.e. that agricultural development will benefit tremendously from this new legislation. If we bear in mind that, as the hon. the Minister indicated, the total turnover of co-operatives during the past year totalled R6,4 milliard, one can justifiably support the hon. the Minister’s standpoint that this legislation ensures and makes possible the existence of a good and sound agricultural industry, which is of the utmost importance for the industrial sector and for commerce as well. Surely the co-operatives are not a threat to commerce, on the contrary, they are in many respects good partners of the merchant. The hon. the Minister also pointed out that many farmers were put back on their feet again with the aid they received from co-operatives. Thousands of farmers were kept in the industry by cooperatives. To whose advantage? To a very great extent it was also to the advantage of the commercial sector. In the past this was a direct result of the co-operative movement and the same will apply in future.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of a long and detailed discussion of this Bill. I believe hon. members on both sides of the House are fully aware of the points of conflict which exist between private enterprise on the one hand and the co-operatives on the other hand.

I should like to reply to a few of the points raised by the hon. members for Malmesbury and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. When Mr. Theunissen was speaking about co-operative practice, I thought that we were at last going to have a definition of what a co-operative practice is. But he failed to give us any definition. In the sciences of semantics, unless one can define the meaning of a particular word in clear terms, one should say: “Blah”. Therefore, in terms of what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said, to say “co-operative practice” is in semantics to say “blah, blah”, because that is what it means. Until one has defined that concept, it has no meaning. We have asked time and again for a definition to be given. One cannot make assumptions about something for which there is no definition.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one further point to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. He made an accusation against the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I want to remind him of a very well-known Xhosa proverb. It is: Never point a finger at anybody because you are pointing three at yourself. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer now to the remarks made by the hon. member for Malmesbury who said that the co-operatives were part of the private sector. I agree with him that co-operatives are part of the private sector. However, the problem is that all sections of the private sector should then have exactly the same privileges, and that is simply not so. Private enterprise and the co-operatives have different privileges. The reason for the introduction of this Co-operatives Bill is to give it special ratification by Parliament.

With reference to the entry of the cooperative movement into the fertilizer industry I would have thought that they would have brought the price down so radically that when the price of wheat and bread went up they would not have blamed it on an increase in the price of fertilizer. I would have thought that, as a co-operative which is intensely interested in this matter, they would have done something about it.

I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River who said that there should be competition between co-operatives just as there is competition between private traders.

Let us for a moment examine some of the interesting points in regard to how big this co-operative industry is. Unfortunately, the statistics that I wish to quote from are those for 1978. If the hon. the Minister of Statistics had been able to give us more recent figures, I would have quoted them. From these figures we find that the total number of co-operatives in South Africa in 1978 was over 500 and the total number of people belonging to agricultural co-operatives was 300 000. However, there is one sector that has not been discussed to any great extent during the debate on this particular legislation but which is covered by it and that is the consumer trading societies. In 1978 there were 211 of these—there are probably more now—and the membership of these societies numbered 127 000. What is interesting—and I cannot understand this—is when one considers the consolidated balance sheets of agricultural co-operatives. According to these figures, in 1978 they had total fixed assets of R725 million, current assets of R1¾ billion, fictitious assets of R1 379 million and accumulated losses of R6 667 million. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me what these fictitious assets are and why the accumulated losses are so great. I just want to mention at this stage that I shall deal just now with the question of market-related interest.

To come back to the Bill, during the course of my Second Reading speech I drew attention to the fact that while bonuses in terms of patronage proportion was an undeniable objective of co-operatives, private enterprise in terms of the Marketing Act, No. 59 of 1968, had in the past been precluded from paying bonuses in order to enable them to pay as much for the product as co-operatives were able to pay.

In terms of clause 18 of the Bill the hon. the Minister may in certain circumstances exempt any class of person specified in the notice from a prohibition under paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) stipulates that the Minister may prohibit any person who is not a co-operative from pursuing a co-operative practice so declared. Also in terms of clause 18 the Minister may in special circumstances give such exemption by notice in the Government Gazette.

I hope that if private enterprise, and particularly the dairy industry—because that is the one that is most affected—approaches the Minister to allow them to pay a bonus in order to meet competition by co-operatives in respect of a highly perishable product such as milk, the hon. the Minister will deal with their request sympathetically by allowing private enterprise to pay an equal amount in the form of a bonus and thus avoid what has become a very vexatious matter in the industry. I hope the hon. the Minister will have a certain amount of sympathy. This makes me think of the bank manager who was approached by a client who wanted an overdraft. The manager would not give an overdraft, and after a long discussion he said to the client: “I have a glass eye and a real eye. Tell me which is the glass eye and which is the real eye, and I shall give you an overdraft.” The client looked at the manager and after about two minutes said: “The left eye,” to which the manager asked him: “How did you know?” To this the client retorted: “It showed just a little bit of sympathy.” [Interjections.] I hope the hon. the Minister will show just a little bit of sympathy to private enterprise when they approach him with a request for exemption from this particular stipulation.

Give the hon. the Minister two glass eyes. [Interjections.]

With regard to the payment of tax by public companies, private enterprise and co-operatives—although this is not covered by the Bill—this legislation certainly extends certain privileges, because in terms of the Income Tax Act certain differentiations are made. I trust the hon. the Minister of Finance—when this matter is discussed again in the coming debates on the various taxation Bills—will investigate this matter more fully. The only statistics that I have available come from statistics on Public finance, Central Government, Assessed income of companies according to source—and it is Table 19.10.

In 1976 the sugar industry was assessed on a total income of R35 million. That was its total taxable income for that year. In the same year agricultural co-operatives were only taxed on R7 million, whereas manufacturing was taxed on R1 091 million. This just shows that there is something radically wrong when co-operatives are paying so little towards taxation. They too should make their contribution.

With regard to the amendment in the statutory pledge or the “pandreg”, proposed by the hon. the Minister, I think this will undoubtedly help in that it means now that the whole of the farmer’s product does not come under the statutory pledge. The excess can now be used by private enterprise. This is an amount over and above which the farmer can pledge to somebody else. Cooperatives, however, have the right to say whether they will allow it or not, and I ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that cooperatives will not place any obstacles in the way of their members when they make application for the surplus to their pledge to be allowed as a pledge for other purposes.

I should like to point out that I regret that the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to allow the formation of a standing advisory committee by giving it legal status in this Bill. It would have been absolutely simple. I think he must have become afraid when somebody called this a watchdog committee. It was not to be a watchdog committee over the Minister. It was to be a watchdog committee acting between the co-operatives and private enterprise in order to ensure that they looked after each other and that they acted in good faith. The purpose of the committee was to enable private enterprise and the co-operatives to get together and to be a body where they could jointly discuss their problems, because there are problems and there are going to be problems in the future. They would have with them representatives of the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries, of Industry and Commerce and of the Department of Finance so that should any unfair practices arise these could be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister, in that way avoiding them in future.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have had a very thorough discussion of this legislation and we are aware of the difficulties that pertain. I think private enterprise is, as the hon. member for Malmesbury has said, not afraid of competition from the co-operatives and vice versa. As I said in my Second Reading speech, co-operatives today are highly organized businesses with highly intelligent and capable managerial staff. They are not like they were in the old days when the co-operative movement started, as the hon. member for Mooi River said. They are today highly integrated and very well run business organizations. There is place in our agricultural industry for both private enterprise and co-operatives for the ultimate benefit of the farmers, who after all produce the raw materials for industry.

I want to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider the request I made that private agricultural companies should also be able to borrow from the Land Bank on the same terms as the co-operatives, and also whether he will not discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance, because they are dealing in the same product and therefore they should be on the same terms. Although this matter is not dealt with in the Bill, it is one of the problems that exist in this industry.

In conclusion I want to wish the hon. the Minister well with this legislation because if he believes that his problems are over, well, they are not, and I hope that he will be able to meet the wishes of both the co-operatives and those of private enterprise. Like Solomon, he is, however, going to have a very difficult task.

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, this is the eighth time that this legislation has come up for discussion. It has covered virtually the entire session of Parliament.

In the first place I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to hon. members on this side of the House for their participation and the very positive and knowledgeable contributions they made to this debate. I cannot remember hearing a debate on agricultural legislation in this House which was conducted on a higher level than this debate on the Co-operatives Bill. I also wish to convey my thanks to the hon. the leader of the NRP and his party. I think an important thing happened in this debate and during the discussion of this legislation. The NRP adopted a positive standpoint, together with the Government, in favour of the farming community.

It is a wash-out.

The hon. member for Parktown says the NRP is a wash-out.

[Inaudible.]

I would not even squat on his lawn.

I think the hon. member for Parktown is an untimely wash-out. In any case, I want to thank the hon. members of the NRP for the positive contribution they made in this regard.

They were cooperatives.

It is clear to me that this party does have contact with farmers and that they have the interests of the farmers at heart, just as this side of the House has the interests of the farmer at heart. I think this is model legislation we have come forward with. Over the years the co-operative sector has developed dynamically. New challenges have arisen and new possibilities have presented themselves along the way, and the co-operative industry had to adjust to accommodate these new challenges on behalf of the producers.

Allow me to say in the first place that it was a real disappointment to me that such important legislation, which to a large extent will determine the destiny of agriculture in this country, was not debated in an objective way and on a non-political basis in this House. Surely politics as such are not involved here. What is involved here is the weal and woe of the agricultural industry, which in my opinion is the cornerstone of our development in the economic field. What did we get here? There was the contribution of the PFP. Let us consider what the PFP wanted. They wanted the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. If I had acceded to this request, they would have argued that we were sitting three evenings a week and that there would therefore not be time to dispose of the legislation during the present session. Then they would have said that the Select Committee could not sit during the recess, because the recess was too short. That would bring us to the next session, and they would then have said that because the House had to sit the Select Committee could not sit as well. In this way they wanted to delay the legislation.

We wanted to get better legislation.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made the far-fetched allegation that the Government has been dragging its feet over this legislation since 1967. He accused the Government of only submitting this legislation now, although Prof. Steenkamp’s report was published as long ago as 1967. But now that we have the legislation here, that hon. member tried to delay it. They did not even want to allow more than one stage a day has to be taken.

However, I now want to make another point. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said the Government had neglected its duty by waiting 14 years before introducing this legislation. Let us consider the background which led to the appointment of the Steenkamp Commission. The Steenkamp Commission was appointed because the non-co-operative sector claimed that the cooperative sector was in a privileged bargaining position. In the explanatory memorandum it is clearly stated that the Steenkamp Commission made certain recommendations in 1967. However, I want to explain why it took so long for legislation in this regard to be introduced. Then the hon. member will at least be able to understand one aspect of the Co-operatives Act. The hon. member should take the trouble to read the explanatory memorandum, or perhaps he did in fact read it but did not understand it. In paragraph 3.2 of this memorandum we read the following—

It was then pointed out that there were problem areas on which conflicting views were held by the various interested groups. After constant negotiation, after consultation and after a process of give and take by the bodies concerned a package deal was made in 1979 on behalf of the various groups.

After 12 years.

The hon. member wasn’t even involved in those negotiations.

Nor were you.

I was involved in those negotiations for many years. If that hon. member only realized how far apart the poles were and how much new ground had to be broken to get the highest possible degree of concensus in this conflict, he would realize what great progress has been made.

A package deal was arrived at between these two ministeries, viz. Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance, and that package deal is now being implemented here. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central now says the Government has not kept its word in respect of the package deal because in the first place no statutory commission has been appointed to keep an eye on what the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries gets up to.

No, not what the Minister gets up to.

But that is what it amounts to. But I said that that was not included in the package deal as such. It was mentioned as a possibility by one of my colleagues during the negotiation process. In that negotiation process there was give and take, and then in 1979 an agreement was reached. Many things fell by the wayside, but a few new things also came into existence along the way in order to arrive at an agreement. I agreed to a standing liaison committee being established under the chairmanship of the Registrar of Co-operatives on which the various sectors could be represented and on which they could serve. They can then air all their grievances and complaints on a permanent basis on the committee. Surely such a liaison committee will be just as effective, but that is not what the hon. members want. They want a watch-dog committee.

No.

Yes, those words were used time and again. The hon. members want a committee which can prevent the Minister from taking certain steps. That is what they want. What they want of course is for an Act of this Parliament to be subject to a statutory committee which is actually above Parliament.

You know that is not true.

Keeping a watch on the Minister is different from keeping a watch on Parliament.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central’s allegation that we broke the package deal. He said we broke the package deal in the sense that we extended the provision on the lien to spare parts and repair services and the supply of electricity as well. The supply of electricity was not in the package deal and neither were repair services and spare parts. We then had the Jacobs committee of inquiry. This committee which had no direct interest in either the co-operative sector or the non-co-operative sector, but which was an absolutely objective committee, recommended to the Government that co-operatives be placed in a position to finance electricity, repair services and spare parts as well. This request was submitted to the Land Bank, because the Land Bank is the financing institution. The Land Bank said it would do so on condition that the statutory lien was also extended to electricity, repair services and spare parts. The Jacobs Committee recommended it and the Land Bank laid down certain requirements. Would the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central now tell me whether he, if he was the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, would have refused it or allowed it?

Put it in the legislation.

But it is in the legislation. The hon. member must tell me whether he would have included it in the legislation as I have done here.

We are talking about market-related interest rates.

Oh no, now they are talking about interest rates again. I can tell that hon. member now that it is because he and his party have such a negative attitude towards the farmer that they are not prepared to support it.

That is totally untrue.

Because they have a fundamentally negative attitude towards the agricultural sector, they would not have included it. [Interjections.] The hard facts of the matter are that that party fought the inclusion of spare parts and repair services tooth and nail during the debate. They therefore tried tooth and nail to trample the interests of farmers in this country underfoot. [Interjections.] And they did so after the Jacobs Committee and the Land Bank had recommended all these things in the interests of agriculture.

I thought we had a good actor on this side of the House, but you now have a better one on the Government side.

But that is not all. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is suffering from some kind of political schizophrenia or other, and I shall prove it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is suffering from schizophrenia? [Interjections.]

Order! I request the hon. the Minister to withdraw the words “political schizophrenia”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has a dichotomous approach to agriculture … [Interjections.] … a dual personality approach … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister was asked to withdraw the words “political schizophrenia” but he now says the hon. member has dual personality. That is the same thing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister said the hon. member gave evidence of a double approach to the matter. He did not say he had a dual personality. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I now want to substantiate what I said. I am not being personal about the hon. member. I am attacking his standpoint. That hon. member accused the Government and I of not honouring an agreement. [Interjections.] No, but what did that hon. member do? That hon. member supported the measure extending the lien to electricity, but he said we were not keeping to the lien because we are extending it to cover repair services and spare parts as well. [Interjections.] He voted for the lien being extended to cover electricity, and that is when the hon. member showed himself to be a person with a dual standpoint on one and the same matter. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must therefore not be annoyed with me when I say that their behaviour towards the farmers in this country is really negative. [Interjections.] This side of the House is of course trying to maintain an equilibrium between the interests of the co-operative and non-co-operative sectors, but if that party ever comes into power, I believe it will mean the end of the existence of the co-operative sector in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. member kicked up a great fuss here when he asked why we had not written into the legislation that loans could be raised from the Land Bank at market-related interest rates under certain circumstances only. However it has repeatedly been argued in this debate that I cannot lay down prescriptions for the Land Bank’s behaviour in the provisions of the Co-operatives Act. After all, the Land Bank is an autonomous statutory body. However, the member moved an amendment in which he spoke of short-term financing of supplies, farming requisites of a durable nature, the manufacture of production means and farming requisites, the question of buildings, etc. The hon. member says we should state in the legislation what co-operatives may not borrow from the Land Bank in that connection. If the hon. member had known anything at all about cooperatives he would never have made such a suggestion. I should like the hon. members opposite to realize that the co-operative idea was born out of the need and desperation of a group of people who were in trouble and who were compelled into solidarity by that desperate situation …

That is what the communists say. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to object most strongly to one of the hon. members opposite saying that that is what the communists do. I feel it is a clear reflection on the co-operative sector …

And on the farmers.

… and on the farmers who constitute the co-operative sector, that they are accused of communism. [Interjections.] Sir, it must be withdrawn.

Order! Is the hon. the Minister raising it as a point of order?

Yes, Sir, I am raising it as a point of order in all earnestness.

Would the hon. member for Parktown repeat what he said?

The hon. Minister explained how the co-operative idea came into existence and I then said it was like the communist ideology; that was what the communists did. [Interjections.]

It is disgraceful!

Sir, the hon. member said: “Like the communists.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I just want to say that the interjection made by the hon. member is an illustration to me of the standpoint which the hon. member adopts towards the farming community in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is a subtle way of suggesting that agriculture, the co-operative movement and the farmers are donning the cloak of a communistic socialistic philosophy.

It was not intended as a reflection on the farmers or on co-operatives at all. [Interjections.]

It was a very unfortunate and foolish remark the hon. member made.

He has no political sense. He is hopeless.

I also want to refer to the remarks by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to the effect that the Government had delayed this legislation for 14 years. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury on the way in which he replied to this. When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was speaking, it became clear that he did not understand what was involved. When the hon. member for Malmesbury spoke one could immediately hear that he was a practising farmer and was speaking on behalf of the farmers. That is one of the reasons why there are real farmers on the opposite side of this House, except for certain members of the NRP. In the NRP ranks there are a few farmers. I should like to take this opportunity to sympathize with certain members of the PFP over the standpoint their Whips caused them to take in this House since I believe that they would have liked to have supported this legislation.

Do not waste your sympathy. You have so little of it anyway.

As I have said, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central himself supported the breach of the lien in that he wholeheartedly supported the inclusion of electricity. I want to be fair to him. I want to thank him for supporting the breach of the lien in regard to electricity. That is the only positive sound I heard from him in the debate.

I now come to the hon. member for Mooi River. He is a real farmer, a man who lives close to the soil and who has the interests of agriculture and of the co-operative movement at heart.

†The hon. member said that the cooperatives in this country had played an important role in the development of rural areas in the country. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I also agree that the development of the agricultural sector is a prerequisite to broader economic development in any area. That is a fact. The hon. member also made the point that competition between cooperatives should be allowed. I can just remark on that by saying that in several areas there is competition between different co-operatives, though that is not the rule.

*The hon. member Mr. Theunissen made the point that the co-operative, by promoting collective bargaining on behalf of and in favour of the farmer and by in fact being an extension of the farmer, obviates many of the individual fanner’s problems, which he could possibly not have dealt with himself. The hon. member rightly made the point that the co-operative movement is a dynamic concept, and for this reason one cannot incorporate it in legislation by defining all the concepts. As regards the question of co-operative practice which was raised, one cannot define it as a fixed concept, because there is development. For that reason there must be a reasonable degree of flexibility so that the Minister can define by way of regulation what a co-operative practice is.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said he wanted to give the private sector the same benefits as those enjoyed by a cooperative. Inter alia, he mentioned the milk industry, and said he also wanted to give that industry the privilege of paying bonuses from profits. This argument has been raised so frequently that it is actually becoming a little boring. Surely we have made it clear that there are certain disadvantages attaching to co-operatives, for example in respect of shareholding, capital formation, and the like. There is for example no growth in the share capital. Now those hon. members want to give all the advantages of the cooperatives to the private sector, but they will not be prepared to give all the advantages the private sector has to the co-operatives. That is the point. The advantage which the co-operatives are afforded if one can call it that, seeks to enable the co-operatives to act on behalf of and in favour of the producer in order to keep his production costs as low as possible. That is what is involved.

I have now replied to more or less all the points that were raised. In conclusion I wish to thank the law advisors of the Department of Justice and also the legal experts in my own department very sincerely for the excellent piece of legislation they prepared. It took many hours of work, and it is an excellent piece of legislation. I therefore wish to express my special thanks and appreciation to them, as well as to the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill, except for clauses 3, 7 and 15, was published on 9 January 1981 for general information and comment. In the first place, nine clauses of the Bill provide for administrative matters. Clause 1 stems from the rationalization of the Public Service. The reference to “Justice” in the definition of “Minister” is altered to “Industries, Commerce and Tourism”.

Rationalization of the Public Service and the resultant transfer of the administration of the Liquor Act to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has entailed that the previous requirement that the posts of chairman and deputy chairman of the Liquor Board be occupied by officials of the Department of Justice, has also had to be rectified. This rectification is effected by means of clause 2.

Stemming from the “Carlton conference” in 1979, the Small Business Development Corporation, Limited, was established as a joint undertaking on the part of the public and private sectors. In terms of the agreement which led to the founding of the Small Business Development Corporation, the State undertook to transfer the functions, duties, assets, liabilities etc. of various other development corporations to the Small Business Development Corporation. This includes liquor interests in which the corporations mentioned have a direct or indirect interest. However, it is necessary to rectify this situation in law and enable the Small Business Development Corporation to take over the liquor interests in question and obtain new interests. Provision for this is made in clause 3.

The wording in the Afrikaans and English text of the existing section 43 of the Liquor Act, 1977, do not correspond, and this difference is rectified by clause 8.

Subsections (1) and (2) of section 190 of the Liquor Act were amended during the 1980 session of the House of Assembly to provide for a power to delegate. Since then, the need has arisen to provide for a power to delegate in respect of subsection (3) as well. This is being done in terms of clause 15, while clause 16 ensures that the provisions of the Liquor Act do not infringe the Trade Metrology Act.

Clause 17 is the short title and stipulates when the various measures will come into operation.

†Hon. members of the House will recall the controversy which surrounds the marketing of wine in plastic containers with a capacity of 20 litres (the so-called “swart varkies”). It will be remembered that the matter came up for debate in this House in 1980 and that it was held over for further investigation. The investigation has since been completed. The second part of the Bill, namely clauses 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13 concerns itself with this issue. Undesirable practices have resulted from a dispensation which enables wine farmers, wholesalers and off-consumption retail liquor outlets to sell wine in 9 to 20 litre plastic containers. This has caused great harm to the image of wine and the establishment of a responsible drinking pattern.

The clauses to which I have referred will prohibit such wine farmers, wholesalers and off-consumption retail liquor outlets from marketing wine in these offending containers and compel them to sell wine in quantities of not less than 4,5 litres in receptacles of which the capacity does not exceed 5 litres. The right of holders of wine farmers’ authorities to sell wine in bulk in quantities exceeding 5 litres to farmers and the retail liquor trade remains unaffected. This clause will come into operation as from 1 July 1982. The time allowed for the phasing out of such containers resulted from negotiations with interested parties who have invested substantially in this field.

The minimum quantity of 250 millilitres of wine which may be sold by the holder of a wine farmer’s authority under section 24 of the Act to a bona fide visitor, is to enable bona fide visitors to wine farms to buy wine in as small a quantity as possible. With this in mind the modern 250 ml glass container is eminently suitable and therefore the principle is also applied to other classes of retailers so as not to discriminate. The requirement of section 24 of the Act for holders of wine farmers’ authorities to effect delivery of wine only by way of railage is dispensed with.

Furthermore, provision is made in clause 5 that a wine farmers’ licence may be transferred or granted also to a co-operative society engaged in the manufacture of wine produced from grapes cultivated by its members and not only, as at present, where the majority of its members are engaged in viticulture.

It is also made possible by clause 6 of the Bill for a co-operative society to acquire a wine house licence which, hitherto, has been impossible.

Problems have recently been encountered in respect of the granting of grocers’ wine licences in cases where independent entrepreneurs carried on other businesses such as a butchery, chemist etc. on the premises of a supermarket with a grocer’s wine licence. A technical loophole in the wording of section 35 should not be used to disrupt the marketing of wine via grocery stores. Clause 7 provides for an open authority to all persons legally doing business on the premises of a grocery store and furthermore prevents existing grocers’ wine licences from being set aside.

“Clause 9 makes provision for an amendment of section 72 in order to afford a licence-holder who does not have international status, the opportunity to make his facilities available from time to time to population groups other than those for whom the premises are licensed, at his own discretion. However, such availability remains subject to the conditions set by the Minister.

The proposed amendment deviates from the wording published for general information and comment in that the mentioned discretion is not automatically granted to the licence-holder but is granted on the basis of an application and subsequent ministerial approval. It is further provided that such approval may be withdrawn at any time if the conditions are not met.

This amendment was necessary to ensure that the more extensive powers being granted to licence-holders by this clause will be exercised in an orderly and structured fashion and to authorize the Minister to withdraw the right obtained hereby by a licence-holder at any time if it should become evident that he is not complying with the conditions or dealing with the situation in an orderly and responsible fashion.

The amendment does not entail the unqualified throwing open of licensed premises. On the contrary, it only provides that licensed premises reserved for the use of a specific group may from time to time accommodate members of other population groups where the need arises. Therefore the amendment envisages a more flexible and manageable situation than exists at present in terms of subsection (4), the so-called ad hoc authorization.

In reality, this means that alongside the international category of licensed premises, provision is being made for a class of licence-holders who may themselves decide on the availability of their facilities as the need may arise from time to time, subject to specific conditions.

The argument that this merely amounts to a duplication of the existing international status institutions is erroneous. The permanent international institutions are geared to making their facilities available to all members of the public, irrespective of race or colour, on an equal basis and with a minimum of restrictions and conditions.

Accordingly, it is also required of licence-holders with international authorization to exhibit a distinctive insignia which places beyond all doubt the fact that their facilities are open to all, irrespective of race.

This group of licence-holders has proved over the years that it is able to deal with the contact situation in an extremely orderly and responsible fashion. The autonomy and permanence they have achieved as international institutions distinguishes them from the proposed class of licence-holders. The distinction lies in the fact that the international licence-holder should be afforded the greatest possible degree of autonomy in the handling of his open premises, whereas the proposed class of licence-holder is not open on an unqualified basis, nor will he enjoy equivalent international status.

The question has been considered whether the proposed category ought not similarly to be indicated by a distinctive insignia. There is merit in such an argument. However, the fact is that the new category only departs from the existing ad hoc arrangement in so far as the licence-holder need not telephone to Pretoria for approval but has the power to take the decision himself. Accordingly the amendment does not entail the creation of a new category so much as the facilitation of an existing procedure which has in the past given rise to severe embarrassment and unpleasantness.

In order to make provision for licenceholders of premises where there is no need to accommodate people other than those for whom they are licensed, the existing ad hoc authorization for exceptional cases is being retained provisionally.

The proposed amendment also deviates from the published text in that club liquor licences are excluded from the prohibition contained in section 72. A club is regarded as a private organization of which the management is responsible to its members. It could be compared to a family. The amendment also complies with the recommendations made by the investigating committee into legislation relating to sport, which was appointed by the Human Sciences Research Council.

The exclusion of the holder of a club liquor licence from the provisions of section 72 does not mean that a club liquor licence does not still remain subject in all respects to all the other provisions of the liquor licence, with regard, too, to the orderly and responsible handling of occasions where liquor is made available.

In conclusion, section 186(f) of the Act, which regulates the introduction into, possession of or consumption of liquor in such portion of a sports-ground to which members of the public have access in return for payment, is being amended. The provision that this prohibition applies only in cases where the public has access to a sports-ground on payment of a fee, is deleted. More and more sports meetings are being presented where no admission fees are required, and the police are finding it impossible to deal with such situations.

A further amendment involves the provision that the Minister may exempt a sports-ground or a section of a sportsground from such restriction. In this way provision is made for large modern sports complexes where facilities for spectators to be together and even to enjoy meals, are provided. The Minister could exclude the sections of the sports complex mentioned from the provisions of this clause. Clause 14 makes provision for that.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is most appropriate that this hon. Minister should be introducing this measure here today, because I do believe that this hon. Minister appreciates far more than perhaps other hon. members in this House the significance of taking the step to free sportsmen from the restrictive laws which have caused so much grief to South Africa and to South African sportsmen over the years.

I should like to say right at the outset that we in these benches will support this Bill. We shall not oppose its passage at Second Reading.

The Bill contains a number of provisions, some technical and others of a more important nature. I should like to refer briefly to some of the matters mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech. In particular I should like to say that we support the clauses which relate to the inclusion, in certain provisions of the Act, of the small business corporations. We also go along with the hon. the Minister’s viewpoint relating to the sale of liquor in plastic containers, and we will be supporting those stipulations as well. We shall also support the hon. the Minister without very much comment in regard to the amendments he has proposed relating to the sale of liquor on sports grounds. I think that is the last amendment this Bill seeks to bring about.

Having said that, I have to point out that it is of course clause 9 of the Bill which is of the greatest import and which, I believe, should attract the greatest public interest. It is of the greatest import to sportsmen, and it is certainly also of the greatest import to restaurateurs and to so many members of the public who are sportsmen and who frequent restaurants and other public places where meals and liquor are served. Mr. Speaker, the first half of clause 9 of this amending Bill—that is the subsection which amends section 72(1) of the principal Act—has been occasioned by a long and dismal history of discrimination in South Africa. For years, ever since I have been in this Parliament, this Government has spoken of sport autonomy. This Government has stated that it believes that one of the vital factors in the administration of sport is that the Government should not interfere and that sport should be autonomous.

As long ago as 1976 or 1977 the then Minister of Sport said in a public statement that there was no law that prevented anyone of any colour, race or creed from joining any club. This was a view which was expounded to the world and to South Africa. In truth, it is a statement which was technically correct, for in fact the only legal bar to a person becoming a member of a club was the constitution of the club. Yet the words sounded far better than their real meaning. Clubs who wished to admit members of different races or who wished to serve refreshments or to entertain people at sports events or to include people of different races in their teams or competitions were, despite the fine sounding words relating to autonomy, hampered fatally. They were hampered fatally by legislation which even now has undergone no change. I refer briefly to the Group Areas Act and to proclamation 228.

Hon. members will remember that proclamation 228, framed in terms of the Group Areas Act, was introduced some 10 years ago—it might even be longer—to try and prevent a cricket club, the Aurora Cricket Club in Natal, from including in its teams certain players who were not White. That proclamation prohibited persons of one colour from occupying premises, places or fields which were within an area which was proclaimed to be for the occupation of people of another colour. That restriction on sportsmen still exists; it is still on the Statute Book, and the hon. the Minister knows the effect that particular proclamation has had on sport in South Africa. The Separate Amenities Act, which separates and takes fields, swimming-pools, beaches and public places and places them within the purview of only one race is still on the Statute Book. The Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act is an Act which has caused grave damage to South African sport, and it is still on the Statute Book. The Liquor Act, the Act that is now before us, is an Act which over the years has done a great deal to cause damage to South African sportsmen. While the Government has said that there is no law which prevents any person from becoming a member of any club—and the Government is correct—it well knows that any person becoming a member of a club, if he manages somehow to get round the Group Areas Act, Separate Amenities Act and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, is still confronted with a situation that once he is in that club-house he may not be served with any refreshment of an intoxicating nature and he may not even be in that section of the club where such liquor is served.

It is a Catch 22-situation.

It is exactly as the hon. member states: A Catch 22-situation. While there has been no law to prevent a person from becoming a member of a club, from going onto club premises or from playing sport as such, there have been numerous other laws which have made it impossible for him to do this. It must now be obvious to this House that the racialistic provisions in particular of the Liquor Act have been a major bar to sports autonomy in South Africa over the years. Because of this and because of the difficulties that South African sport was experiencing and because of the rising crescendo of protest which started to come from within the country and which was reflected by people outside the country, the Government had to look at this whole situation, and it did. And what did it do? It started creating a system of special permits, a system which enabled people to obtain special permission to go onto club premises, into restaurants and situations like these. I now want to quote from a memorandum issued on 26 January 1980 by the then Minister of Sport. It relates to the Government’s attitude to the Group Areas Act, and I quote—

Of course, the law was not changed. This was merely an administrative memorandum.

The Urban Areas Consolidation Act was, without it ever being brought before Parliament, sort of physically amended by a little memorandum saying that if one had a ticket to go to a rugby or soccer match, one would be allowed into a Black area. Of course this did not help matters. There continued to be incidents. While our rugby team was in New Zealand, a man, a rugby coach, was arrested in Port Elizabeth because he went to watch his own team playing rugby in a Black township. Those things still exist; they are publicized throughout the world and cause our sportsmen shame and embarrassment.

What does this memorandum, issued by the Government, say in regard to the Liquor Act? It said the following—

Can you believe that, Sir?—

They live in a dream world.

The memorandum states further—

Can one actually believe a statement like that? I quote further—

and the telephone number is then given. The memorandum states further—

That is patently not true. I know of occasions, before the hon. the Minister took the position that he now holds, where clubs in this city—and I can think of one in particular, the Western Province Cricket Club—have been refused permission by the Liquor Board on the grounds that a Group Areas permit was required, and it took them months to put that right.

I want to say that the days that the Government can believe it can change things by administrative exceptions, by special permits or permissions, are over. We cannot continue to circumvent the law and statutory provisions by trying to make special exceptions behind closed doors. I believe that this approach is totally inadequate.

And it does not fool anybody.

Not only is it inadequate, Sir, but the special permits and permissions that continue to be envisaged by the Government, are seen as insulting by the people to whom they apply. They result in confusion, in frantic telephone calls, sometimes late at night, to find out whether a person can or cannot be admitted to certain premises.

Why dwell in the past?

Because we are not completely overcoming these problems. The hon. the Minister asks why dwell in the past. I am going to tell him why. I dwell in the past because this Bill does not solve the problems. There have been incidents and slights and great international publicity has been given to those incidents and the insults that have been brought upon the heads of our own South Africans. Instead of helping sport, this attitude which demanded permits and special permission has done a great deal to damage it. As South African sport plummeted to further world isolation, it was clear that something had to be done. Sportsmen have done almost everything that could be done. They have opened their clubs where they could. They have accepted the principle of the selection of teams on merit and they have mixed teams and competitions. It is only Government legislation which continues to sabotage the sportsmen’s efforts in this country. The Human Sciences Research Council sat for many months and published a fairly long and sensible report. I would like to quote some of the points that it made in regard to the legislation before us and which is contained in the summary to the report. It was published in October 1980, and I quote from paragraph 1.3—

In paragraph 1.4 it states—

Only.

Point one: In the field of sport.

Everywhere else it is OK.

The hon. member says “only”, and she is absolutely correct, but we must understand that the brief of the Human Sciences Research Council was to deal only with sport. They had no brief beyond that aspect.

What do they say about education?

I quote further from paragraph 1.5—

In paragraph 1.12 the report states—

In paragraph 1.14 the report states—

The Human Sciences Research Council specifically said the following in relation to the Liquor Act—

The hon. the Minister has taken the other way around, and I have no objection to that at all. The council recommends what is contained in this Bill although the Minister used another mechanism. I think it is correct to say that. This recommendation does not entail radical changes either. I quote further from the report—

They actually recommended that there be a legislative change in the law. So as a belated first step we have this amendment to the Liquor Act before us today, a year after the report of the Human Sciences Research Council was published. Interestingly it is almost exactly seven years since I first asked the Government in this House to do this.

Seven lean years.

I would like to ask why this has taken so long.

You should be pleased.

The hon. member for Hercules says I must be pleased about it. I want to say that I have long given up saying “thank you!” when the Government gets rid of lousy laws.

The hon. member may not refer to the laws of the country in an offensive way.

The particular offensive section which is being amended was on the Statute Book while our Springboks were in New Zealand. Chick Henderson commented on it in June this year and asked that we change the laws while our Springboks are in New Zealand, but nothing was done. This kind of law is thrown in the face of every South African sportsman when he is out of the country and facing the public overseas.

The amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister has to be welcomed, of course, because it will mean that clubs will be permanently exempted from at least some of the racial provisions of the Act. Is it, however, enough? It might have been enough seven years ago, but regretfully—because I wish it were enough—I do not believe that it is enough today. It is not enough to satisfy local aspirations, which have escalated over the years and have gone far beyond what is provided for in section 72 of the Liquor Act, and certainly it is not enough to satisfy the international requirements for readmission into world sport.

Not a hope.

Hon. members in this House may well ask why it is not enough. Let me tell them why. It is not enough because the philosophy behind this very provision continues to create special circumstances for sportsmen, whilst leaving all other categories of human beings in the same old boat.

That is the point.

Why does the Government continue to do this?

Piketberg.

Why are sportsmen special, whilst other human beings not special, are not proper full citizens?

That is not sporting.

A provision like this is something I welcome, of course, and so do sportsmen, but it is going to create bitterness and resentment amongst the Black, Coloured and Indian communities, particularly those who are not sportsmen, those whose fathers or sons may be sportsmen but who themselves cannot benefit to the extent that those members of their families can.

There is, however, another reason. [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Minister does not agree with me, but I could not for a moment believe that he would agree with me. Let him, however, just listen to what I have to say. Let him listen to what is said by somebody who has spoken to sportsmen and ordinary people who are not White and who have comments to make about these matters. It gives sportsmen—here we are only dealing with sportsmen—a licence to be White for the short time they are engaged in sporting activities, but reduces them to a lower status as soon as they leave club premises. [Interjections.] They cannot go with their team-mates to the movies and they cannot ride with their team-mates in the public transport of most cities in this country. They cannot go with their team-mates in the same trains unless some special arrangements have been made. Unless an hotel in South Africa has been given special permission, they cannot stay in such an hotel either. They cannot stay in such hotels, in fact, unless somebody telephones the hon. the Minister and gets special permission for them to do so.

They cannot vote in Piketberg either.

There is a third reason. The third reason why I say this is not enough is that proclamation 228, framed in terms of the Group Areas Act and other legislation that I have mentioned today, is still on the Statute Book. It is still there and is still discriminatory. It still creates problems, insulting situations, for sportsmen and other ordinary human beings.

Let me give the final reason why I say that this is not enough. Whether we like it or not, whether we wish this to be so or not, we must remember that sport has become a political weapon, not only in South Africa, but all over the world. Whether we think in terms of the Olympic Games, the Russian-American saga or Israel or Taiwan, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it has become a political weapon. If we are realistic and understand the mechanisms that world bodies use to achieve their aims, we realize that sport is going to continue to be a political weapon. If we think for a moment that ad hoc, piecemeal changes will alter the attitude of those who are offended by the discriminatory mosaic that is South Africa, we are thinking quite wrongly.

Having said that, I want to say that clause 9 undoubtedly provides welcome relief. The proposed new subsection (3A) of section 72, which is the provision relating to restaurants, will obviously assist in obviating the many offensive incidents which have done so much to bedevil race relations in South Africa. You know, Sir, I find it strange, very sad and incredibly ironic that every stumbling move the Government makes which is a move away from apartheid is hailed as a step forward, that the success of the Government is in fact being measured by the extent to which it negates its own policy. I find this incredibly strange.

You must encourage them, Dave.

Sir, I have to ask a few questions. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would perhaps just give attention to the few questions I should like to ask him. I should like to ask why restaurants, etc., but particularly restaurants, were not included in the amendment to section 72(1). Why must there be a special provision for restaurants and for other on-consumption licences? Why could restaurants not have the same provision applied to them as applies to clubs in respect of liquor licences? Surely this would have been logical.

Why only restaurants?

Well, I am talking about the other categories under, I think, section 22(a). We could argue which or what…

Andries said “no”.

… but the one that sticks in my mind is the restaurant licence—I do not have section 22(a) in front of me. Why was the amendment to section 72(1) to free sports clubs not extended to restaurants? It is logical to do so. I do not believe that this amendment should have been restricted to sports clubs.

Secondly I should like to ask in regard to clubs whether the hon. the Minister can give us any indication of what conditions he intends imposing upon clubs which are now getting this new exemption. For instance, does the hon. the Minister intend to include the sort of provisions which are to be found in respect of hotels with international status? In other words, can new members go into clubs as long as they do not dance on a dance floor …

Maybe they can dance on a table.

… and as long as they do not swim in the swimming pool? Will there be any sort of restriction as applies to international hotels where only 15% of the guests at any one time are allowed to be Black? Will there be a percentage restriction on non-White members of clubs? Does the Government have this sort of control in mind or can the hon. the Minister honestly stand up and say: “No, there will be no such racial restrictions; I am going to allow sports clubs their own autonomy?” Is he going to say that or not? I ask the hon. the Minister to answer that question.

Are you talking about sports clubs or restaurants?

I am talking about sports clubs. In regard to the proposed new subsection (3A) to section 72, which is contained in clause 9, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether blanket permits are envisaged or whether this relates to specific events and special permits for specific evenings. If the second applies, i.e. specific events, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is not acceptable, because that system has failed, it has been seen as insulting in the past, it is administratively impossible and, what is more, it will result in further damaging incidents taking place which will hurt the name of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he has this phobia for control. It was reflected in his speech and it is reflected in parts of the Bill in terms of which he can withdraw things, set special conditions and control matters with a rod of iron. Why do we have to have these provisions relating to Government control and Government restrictions? Surely this amendment, this reform, is far too timid. Are we going to have the situation that if a restaurant, for instance, is given a blanket licence or a licence for specific events, conditions are going to be laid down relating to dancing and to the percentage number of non-Whites allowed in the restaurant? What other restrictions are envisaged? I believe these are all questions that require answers.

Finally, while we support the Bill, I would like to warn the House that this Bill in itself is not enough to solve the sports problems, or the racial problems, of this country. Proclamation 228 under the Group Areas Act must go. Secondly, the Separate Amenities Act must go. Thirdly, the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act is an Act which must be looked at in depth and from which the offensive provisions must be removed.

The apartheid structure is, however, still in place. Ordinary people, whether they be sportsmen or whether they be ordinary members of the public, whether they be South Africans or whether they be foreigners, still ask themselves: “Why am I acceptable if I play cricket or tennis but become a second-class citizen if I do not?”

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to confirm our unqualified support of the legislation. I made a note to remind myself to thank the hon. member for Sandton for his party’s support of the legislation, but I do so hesitantly. I must say that I have never seen any hon. member express his party’s support in such a depressed manner. As far as the specific clauses to which the hon. member referred are concerned, one of my colleagues will deal with them.

However, I do consider it appropriate to react to a few at least of the statements he made here. In doing so, I want to say, in the first place that in my opinion his was one of the most presumptuous displays I have ever seen on the part of any hon. member in this House in the short time that I have been here. That hon. member was the first boycotter of the Springbok tour to New Zealand. [Interjections.]

Verwoerd was.

Then the hon. member had the presumption to specifically…

Remember D’Oliveira?

I am coming to the hon. member for Houghton. She must just remain seated, because I want to address her, too. However, I first want to deal with the hon. member for Sandton. He had the presumption to be the first boycotter of the Springbok tour to New Zealand.

Oh, rubbish!

He is the South African who gave more support to the boycotters in New Zealand than any other body or person. He is the person who said before the tour departed that the Springbok team ought not to go to New Zealand. Can hon. members realize what an effect that had in New Zealand? Can they realize what measure of support this afforded those people? Now the hon. member comes along and speaks as the intercessor for sportsmen in South Africa. Can one imagine that an hon. member is really arrogant enough to do that? If anyone else had done so, I should have been able to understand it, but coming from him, I cannot. The hon. member also made certain allegations and critical remarks. Let us consider what is the actual, practical situation in South African society. I should like to put two questions to the hon. member. I want him and the hon. member for Houghton to be honest with one another. I want to ask the hon. member how many of the hon. members in that party belong to clubs that not only discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, but also discriminate between Whites and other Whites. Here I am referring specifically to English-oriented clubs in South Africa of which a person of Jewish descent may not be a member.

I would not belong to a club that would not have me as a member.

Is the hon. member for Sandton or any of those hon. members a member of such a club? I know that there are still such clubs here in the Cape. Would it not be the right thing for that hon. member to do to advocate that this matter, in regard to which there is no legislation, be rectified? Then he and the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members on that side could at least go to the same clubs. After all, the hon. the Minister has nothing to say about that.

I can go further, too. Let us consider what happens in certain schools, for example, in one of the best schools we have in the Peninsula, viz. Bishops. How is access to that school controlled? If one is not a member of a certain club or of the “establishment”, and if one’s child is not placed on a waiting list for the school at birth, one simply has no chance of having one’s child admitted to that school. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

Quite simply, due to the way in which those hon. members do certain things, in practice they act in a far more discriminatory way than hon. members on this side of the House have ever done, with our whole background of legislation and our way of life. Therefore I take it amiss of that hon. member, in view of that mentality in his background, for having told us that he wants to support this legislation and then following that with “but”. The hon. member then went back in history instead of expressing his thanks for what is being done today. That is why I said at the outset that we on this side of the House wanted to give our unqualified support to this legislation, because we are grateful for this progress that is being made.

I now wish to turn to the legislation and say that I believe that as far as this legislation is concerned, we are on the threshold of a entirely new era in regard to the liquor trade in general and the wine trade in particular. In the past the Department of Justice did very good work as regards this legislation, but now that it has been transferred to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, I believe we are going to enter a new era. I believe, too, that we may have a new approach in this regard, an approach in regard to commodity marketing, instead of what we have had in the past, when we tended to stress the judicial concept as regards offences in this connection. This was perhaps a more positive factor for us instead of stimulating the industry, adopting legislation to make the industry more flexible and adapting it to the realistic and new situation we have today.

Other hon. members on this side of the House will deal with some of the clauses of this legislation, but I should like to take this opportunity to refer to clause 2, in which it is provided that two officers in the Public Service will now be nominated by the Minister, one as chairman and one as deputy chairman of the Liquor Board. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the administrative position will be the same in the future as it is at present, since the present chairman and deputy chairman of the Liquor Board possess legal knowledge and experience or an understanding of the industry as such. I know that at present we are in the fortunate situation that both the chairman and deputy chairman of the Liquor Board have a very sound knowledge of this legislation and of the industry. They have a great deal of experience of it. The chairman is also a legally qualified person. Fortunately he is very young, and we may be privileged to have him with us for years and enjoy the privilege of his good services. However, when there has to be a change one day, one should like it to be borne in mind, when further appointments are made, that the question of legal knowledge and the question of experience are both very important requirements in regard to such an appointment.

Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of the NRP to say that we welcome the provisions of this legislation and that we shall support it. I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Sandton had to say as well as to the reaction of the hon. member for Vasco. I should like to tell the hon. member for Vasco that while he may perhaps feel a little hurt at the way in which the hon. member for Sandton supported this measure today, I do believe that what the hon. member for Sandton said should be considered by the hon. the Minister and his colleagues. I say this because South Africa is in the position today where, whatever the reasons in the past may have been, we do have certain laws on our Statute Book which are an offence to people of colour and which, I believe, in the South Africa of today have to be repealed. So I want to repeat that I think that the provisions that were referred to such as Proclamation 228 under the Group Areas Act and certain provisions of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act which create problems and dilemmas for people who are trying to act in a manner which is acceptable to most of the people in this country and in the world, should be repealed. People find their efforts frustrated because of these laws which are on our Statute Books. Therefore I commend the remarks of the hon. member for Sandton to the hon. the Minister for consideration.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vasco that I think the time has come in South Africa when those people who belong together should be allowed to get together. There are many sayings which we hear from time to time, sayings such as “birds of a feather flock together” and the hon. member for Vasco mentioned the fact that there are many private clubs and private schools which do practise certain discriminatory practices. This may be true, but I do not believe that we should allow this law-making body, this legislature to write into the laws provisions which discriminate against people of colour.

Racism is something which no one can defend today, certainly in the outside world and certainly in South Africa today.

I should like to follow your … [Interjections.]

While there are some schools and some clubs which do discriminate on certain grounds, I should like to tell the hon. member for De Kuilen that I belong to a private club and I sent my daughter to a private school where in recent years discrimination based on colour has been removed from the thinking of the members to the extent that I can take people of colour into my club and my daughter in her very dormitory had Indians staying in the school with her. Today we have reached the stage where, I say, discrimination purely based on colour should be removed from our Statute Books and from our thinking. It is because of this that we welcome the provisions of this legislation as it applies to clubs.

As the hon. the Minister and others said, many of the provisions are concerned with technical details of the industry itself and there are only really two clauses that are of major political concern, namely clause 9(a) and 9(c) which concern the removing of certain restrictions. In the first instance we have the removal of certain restrictions placed on clubs, and this, as I say, we welcome. In terms of clause 9(c) certain premises and certain licence holders are now exempt from obtaining permission. We think this is a great improvement and we thank the hon. the Minister for bringing this before the House. We shall support it.

I now come to the matter of the sports-grounds. Clause 14 makes provision for preventing people from consuming liquor on or carrying liquor into sportsgrounds, but there is one matter which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I think I shall raise it in the Committee Stage more fully. It is a fact that many sportsgrounds, when there are no official sporting events being held, are used by the general public as places for relaxation. One wonders what would happen if a family took their portable braai along and the father his six pack of beer, or bottle of Riesling, and they sat down on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon to enjoy a quiet time of relaxation. Would the provisions of clause 14 deny them that right? Having said this, let me say again that we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot find much fault with what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said. I think he was correct when he said that the hon. the Minister should consider very carefully what the hon. member for Sandton had said if we want to normalize sport in South Africa.

On the question of racism the hon. member for Amanzimtoti mentioned that his daughter went to school with children of other colours. So do my children. Like the Chief in Asterix we find that the sky has not fallen on our heads. In fact, if one’s children are allowed to mix in a normal sort of way, free of racial antagonism and so on, they do so very well and indeed they will make a better South Africa.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, at the time of proceedings being suspended I was reacting to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. As I pointed out, I was basically in agreement with what he had said. I do regret to say, however, that I cannot express the same agreement with the comments made by the hon. member for Vasco. It seems to me that what had happened was that the hon. member for Vasco had been given a ball which was a bad ball to play. Therefore, instead of playing the ball, he decided to play the man. Consequently he played the hon. member for Sandton. [Interjections.]

He is also a bad ball.

Hon. members opposite referred to the comments made by the hon. member for Sandton and said that he had introduced the question of political boycotts or that he had made sport into a political issue. I have to ask, however, who it was who, in 1969, prevented Basil D’Oliveira from coming to play cricket in South Africa. [Interjections.] It was not this side of the House. It was the Government side of the House. [Interjections.] They were the people who introduced politics into sport. [Interjections.]

Another question I should like to put to hon. members opposite is this. They criticized the hon. member for Sandton for what he had said about the Springbok tour of New Zealand. As South Africans, are they proud of the way other South Africans were treated in New Zealand? I actually think it is disgusting that our rugby players were so badly treated.

Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I first want to finish my speech before answering any questions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Edenvale should address himself to the provisions contained in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am merely replying to comments made by the hon. member for Vasco.

What do you say about Kelvin Grove?

I shall come to that. [Interjections.]

You want Coloureds, but you do not want Jews. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Vasco raised the question about which the hon. member for Langlaagte has suddenly become so agitated now. That is the question of race discrimination in clubs.

Surely you also discriminate against Jews, do you not?

I am referring to the question of race discrimination in certain clubs. I should like to ask the hon. member for Vasco whether he is in agreement with the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee for the Jurisprudential Investigation into Legislation that Hampers Sports Relations in the Republic of South Africa? That is a report of the Human Sciences Research Council. In paragraph 1(a) of that report the committee says—

Talking about autonomy and the right to differentiate they said—

Does the hon. member for Vasco agree with that?

Which clause are you discussing now?

I am reacting to the hon. member’s comments. If hon. members opposite do not agree with that, they in fact believe in what the hon. member for Vasco is putting forward, namely that people should be forced, i.e. to become members of a club. There is a difference. We do not agree with that, but there is a difference. There is a difference between regulations made by a club and statutes that are laid down by this Parliament. That is the difference. [Interjections.]

Then the hon. member asked why we were riot thankful for what was being done. Really, what an incredible question. For ten or 12 years sport in South Africa has been bedevilled by the politics of this Government. Now, after 12 years, when the Government realizes it has been wrong and makes the necessary changes accordingly, we are meant to say thank you. Really!

Do you agree that this is a good change?

It is a good change, yes. We agree with it and we are supporting it. The question might be asked as to why in this particular Bill so much issue has been made of the question of sport, and I think the answer to this was set out very clearly in the report of the “Regswetenskaplike Komitee oor wetgewing wat die normalisering van sportverhoudinge in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika beïnvloed”. In fact, on page 133 they pointed it out, and the hon. the Minister in his speech made much the same point, that one of the reasons for the changes contained in this legislation were as a result of the recommendations in this report. On page 133 they say—

This committee found, as the hon. member for Sandton has pointed out, that there were a number of laws in South Africa—one of which we are debating today—that made it impossible to practise normal sport in South Africa. Here we are taking just one step and, in reply to the hon. member for Vasco, yes, we do appreciate the fact that this step is being taken. However, we are not going to applaud this step because for years we have called for it and, in fact, we think it is tragic that we have waited so long to introduce necessary changes. We suffer a great deal of harm as a result of that. In South Africa we cannot afford to creep away from discrimination permit by permit. We just do not have the time. As the hon. member for Sandton pointed out, these changes will not solve the problem. A very critical question is: Can one have normal sport in a society where one has a web of discriminatory legal measures? And those we still do have. The hon. member for Sandton has set out, I think in a good deal of detail, the viewpoint of this side of the House, and it is therefore not necessary for me to continue along similar lines in great detail.

The comment that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that in the implementation of this legislation the Minister has a good deal of discretion in terms of the legislation as to how it is going to be implemented. If one looks at clause 9, the proposed new subsection (5) states—

In respect of sport one of the points made by the committee was the difficulty in trying to conduct normal sport in South Africa where one has these administrative regulations. I refer the hon. the Minister to page 129 of the report where it is stated—

In other words, the point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that if one is going to move away from discrimination permit by permit, then let us do it quickly. Are we going to have people on a regional level who are going to approve of these permits, or are we going to have to go through a central authority again? If this is going to be the law, let us operate it as efficiently as possible to make it easier for sports people.

I should also just like to raise a point that the hon. member for Sandton also raised, viz. the question of just how the hon. the Minister is going to implement this. I want to refer in particular to this question. It seems to me that it would be legal for people in a sports club to have a few drinks together. I want the hon. the Minister to comment on this particularly in the light of this report where they have the following to say with regard to dancing, and I quote from page 109 where it states—

If we are going to have the situation where one can go to a club and drink together but cannot dance together, we are, with all respect, going to look foolish. [Interjections.] I believe that the Government should try to move away from trying to regulate every aspect of life in South Africa, including sport. This is the trend that people like Thatcher and Reagan are following, and we believe that we cannot move away too fast from legislative race discrimination in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. members for Sandton and Edenvale, one might think that this country was a sportsground and that the only interests at issue here were those of sportsmen. Even though one has the greatest sympathy with sportsmen, sporting communities and their interests, unfortunately they comprise only a small section of the community as a whole. In contrast to the interests of the community as a whole, those of the sportsmen are of minor import.

The two hon. members support minor changes to the Liquor Act and use this to express criticism in the strongest terms of all the legislation on the Statute Book one could think of. As I have already said, when we consider the interests of the sportsmen and the sporting community, we must never overlook the interests of the community as a whole.

The amendment of subsection (1) of section 72 of Act 87 of 1977 applies to the sportsmen and facilitates matters for them. In all the negative criticism that has come from the other side, there has not been a single word of thanks to the sportsmen. Not one of the hon. members paid tribute to our sportsmen who fight in the front lines of the battle to bring about better relations between the various race groups. However, Sir, I wish to do so now.

Our sportsmen fight in the front lines. I admit that there are laws, rules and regulations that make matters difficult for them. However, those rules and regulations apply to the overall community and not only to sportsmen. For this reason in particular we must pay tribute to our sportsmen who are fighting in the front lines to help bring about better race relations in the country.

There have been several incidents—and we are just as aware of this as the hon. Opposition—-that have been to the detriment of our sportsmen and sporting communities. Our sportsmen are often embarrassed, and that is an embarrassment for South Africa as well. However, the interests of a community as a whole must first be served.

Nor have we heard a word of thanks conveyed by that side of the House to the former Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, who, in the face of opposition from many of his own people, formulated a sports policy in 1976 which enabled our sportsmen to practise their sport.

Sportsman that he is, this hon. Minister is now effecting important amendments to the Liquor Act. However, this does not affect the Group Areas Act, but only the Liquor Act. It now enables sports clubs to entertain guests who are people of colour in their clubs. However, there is a very important condition and that is that every club must still make the decision that they are prepared to entertain people of colour in their club. I do not know whether the members of the Kelvin Grove club will take such a decision even in regard to other White people. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not be concerned that the sportsmen of our country might not know how to meet their obligations or how to behave themselves.

In view of these amendments to the Liquor Act that are being effected, a grave responsibility is being imposed on sportsmen and the sports clubs. I am sure that our sportsmen and the sporting community as a whole will deal with this very difficult matter to the benefit of all of us in the same responsible way as they have conducted their sporting affairs over the years, to the benefit, too, of South Africa.

Since we are speaking of sport and liquor in the same breath this afternoon, there is a matter which causes concern to me and to a number of other hon. members, and also to you, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the way in which the liquor trade is attempting to promote the marketing of its product by involving sport and sportsmen in the liquor trade. Sport and sportsmen are becoming more and more involved in advertising for liquor and the liquor trade. Sport and sportsmen are increasingly becoming a medium for liquor trade advertising. In the times we are living in, and in years past, our sportsmen have always been our children’s heroes. While we appeal to our sportsmen today to continue to conduct themselves in such a way on the sportsgrounds as to be an example to our children, we also ask that in their use of liquor they conduct themselves in such a way that they are an example to our children in this regard as well.

Mr. Speaker, with the kind of support we have received from the Opposition we do not need an Opposition at all. I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Sandton, but he need not answer it now. I should like him to think about it and to answer it perhaps after he has taken time to read his speech again. I know the hon. member has a sporting background. He has refereed in many games in the Transvaal in which I have played, and I hope he still moves amongst sportsmen. He must therefore weigh his answer to the question I should like to put to him against his own sporting background. He must keep in mind the position in which South African sportsmen and sporting bodies find themselves in the world today and the almost desperate effort of our sports administrators to retain a foothold in international sport.

Why?

I will come to that.

You do not have to. We know.

The fact remains that our sportsmen are trying very hard to retain a position in international sport. The IOC has just recently decided to send a fact-finding mission to South Africa, which is very good news for all sportsmen and sporting bodies.

It is very welcome.

The hon. member for Sandton must also consider the question I am going to put to him against the background of the attack against South Africa, of the real motives of our enemies, of those anti-groups who use sport as a political lever. He must ask himself what his party really wants to achieve in South Africa. [Interjections.] In all frankness and sincerity I also want to ask the hon. member to consider the attempts of the Government over the years to give autonomy to our sports bodies and our sports clubs, an autonomy that many countries which advocate actions against South Africa in the international community, deny their own sportsmen. In many countries in the world that vote and campaign against South Africa, the sportsmen are not free to decide against whom they want to participate and where. We have, over the years, sincerely tried to give substance to the autonomy of sports clubs and sports bodies.

What is your question?

I am coming to the question. The fact remains that we live in a very complex society, and it is very difficult to move forward in a country with so many population differences and the conflict potential that we have in this country. The Government has, however, not held back. The Government has moved forward and has been prepared to take a look at itself. The report to which quite a number of hon. members referred this afternoon, is the report of a commission appointed by the Government. We asked …

High time.

… the Human Sciences Research Council to investigate legal obstructions to participation in sport in South Africa.

All obstructions that are there you yourselves put there.

We must ask ourselves whether any measure adopted in this country may not perhaps create more conflict and instability, and whether any action we might take would really serve to build bridges between people as sport tries to do.

The hon. member for Sandton and quite a few other hon. members referred to the Group Areas Act, to regulation 228. Though we are not actually discussing that this afternoon, let me point out that the hon. Minister concerned has granted an open exemption to all sporting bodies as far as that particular provision is concerned. He indicated, in the discussion of his Vote this year, that he intends amending the Group Areas Act early next year to bring it in line with the amendments to the Liquor Act that we are dealing with today. In other words, the hon. the Minister has already given an indication that he intends amending the Group Areas Act. In the meantime, however, he has granted an exemption to all sports bodies. This is, of course, an exceptional year as far as parliamentary sessions go. Because we could have only two short sessions, we cannot pass all the legislation in the short time available. But the fact remains that the relevant provision does not affect sports bodies at all. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer the hon. member to the fact that over the years the international sports community has, at several points, demanded certain changes of South Africa. We shall, however, never satisfy the international sports agitators. They are not interested in sport being free and open. They are only interested in political objectives. That hon. member realizes that.

What is the question?

The question is whether the hon. member has served the sports administrators and sports bodies in South Africa in the speech he made.

Absolutely.

In the light of the IOC mission that is coming to South Africa, let me ask him whether his speech served the best interests of South African sport. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member pretends to be an intercessor for sport. However, the hon. member for Vasco pointed out that that hon. member is not an intercessor for sport but rather an undertaker. [Interjections.] The hon. member made his plea in the name of the international sporting community, but in fact he made a plea in the name of a community which does not have sports objectives as far as South Africa is concerned; in point of fact it only has political objectives. Nothing will satisfy them. It is like a competition one takes part in, in which one can never reach the end because the winning-post is always simply moved further and further away. No, we must do what is right in South Africa, what is right with regard to the various peoples that live here, what is right and fair to all groups, and that applies to Whites as well. We must do what is right for law and order and what is necessary to ensure a stable and healthy community.

That, then, is what we envisage with this legislation, legislation which gives effect to the proposals of the HSRC in connection with the Liquor Act.

The hon. member for Sandton asked certain questions. He wanted to know why restaurant licences are not excluded from the provisions of section 72, as club licences are. There is a vast difference between the nature of the various licences. I indicated in my Second Reading speech that one could regard a club as a family circle. The management is accountable to the members. In contrast, a restaurant is accessible to the public at large. What is more, if the hon. member had read the proposals in clause 9 carefully, he would have seen that the aim in inserting the proposed subsection (3A) is specifically to bring about a situation in regard to restaurant licences, and other licences as well, in which it will be easier for the licence-holder to deal with a contact situation, whether or not he is licensed for a specific population group.

The fundamental difference between us on this side of the House and hon. members of the PFP is that our points of departure differ. The members on this side of the House adopt the basic standpoint that there are different peoples and population groups in South Africa, and that the preservation of minority rights involves the preservation of separate communities. We believe in separate communities, and accordingly our measures are aimed at affording those communities the opportunity to take their rightful place. Our policy, and this legislation as well, do not envisage throwing open of facilities indiscriminately, but orderly control of facilities, control structured in such a way that it is also equal to dealing with the contact situation, because whereas we recognize that there are separate communities in South Africa, we also know that there are many levels of contact, and by means of the Liquor Act we want to make it possible for healthy and orderly contact to be possible among the various population groups without the communities being endangered thereby in any respect.

Then the hon. member asked whether the exclusion of the club liquor licence would have to comply with specific conditions. The hon. member for Edenvale also referred to that. Club liquor licences are excluded from the provisions of section 72 and I cannot impose any conditions on such licence holders in terms of that section. However, those licence-holders are not excluded from the provisions of the Liquor Act, those provisions that require that where liquor is served, an orderly, responsible and decent situation must prevail. Therefore the club liquor licence is still not subject in all respects to all the other limitations and provisions of the Liquor Act. The holder of a club liquor licence, like the holder of any other liquor licence, must at all times be aware that if his business is not conducted in a responsible and orderly fashion, his licence may be jeopardized. The licence-holder who does not exercise his rights in a responsible fashion still, therefore, runs the risk of losing his licence. This is not intended as a warning but only as an appeal to the holders of club liquor licences to approach this situation with great responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Minister has been a little vague in his reply, I should like to ask him whether he considers that the conditions that will be imposed by the other sections of the legislation when licences of this sort are issued will relate to, say, a certain percentage of non-Whites being allowed as members, dancing on the premises, swimming in the swimming-pool, etc. I want to know whether such conditions are in the purview of what is contemplated.

The hon. member is referring to provisions and limitations introduced in terms of section 72. I just wish to repeat that clubs are exempted from the conditions and provisions of section 72 because their licences as such will no longer fall under section 72.

A final question asked by the hon. member related to club membership. Club membership has nothing to do with the Liquor Act and certainly it does not fall under any of the provisions of this legislation. I think I have now replied to all the questions put by the hon. member for Sandton.

The hon. member for Vasco referred to the fact that the Liquor Act will from now on be administered by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, and that this gave an indication of the Government’s approach in regard to the control and marketing of liquor in general. Liquor is regarded as a sensitive commodity, and therefore the necessary responsibility must be displayed in the handling thereof and it is necessary that strict control over the marketing of liquor be exercised. However, it is also necessary that the normal market mechanisms be allowed to play their part in this connection. The hon. member also referred to the legal qualification of the chairman and deputy chairman of the Liquor Board and proposed that such qualifications be incorporated in the legislation. I want to draw his attention to the fact that the amendment being proposed here in no way involves an amendment of the qualifications of the chairman or deputy chairman. The qualifications remain the same. All that is happening here is that because there was a provision to the effect that only members of the Department of Justice could serve on the Liquor Board, the transfer of the administration of the Liquor Act to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism necessitated a consequential amendment. Accordingly the provision can no longer apply only to members of the Department of Justice. Instead of amending the provision to include the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, it was deemed appropriate to broaden the scope of the provision to create the possibility that a public servant from any department could be considered for these posts. The same considerations which have applied thus far will continue to apply in the future. I can assure the hon. member for Vasco that due to the technical legal nature of the Liquor Act, legal qualifications will undoubtedly weigh heavily. However, since—as in the past—there is a possibility that a person with years of experience of the Liquor Act, that he has acquired as a member of the Liquor Board or in some other way, could be considered for that position we do not deem it desirable to incorporate that condition in the legislation. Hon. members may also take cognizance of the fact that Mr. Vorster and Mr. Symington were appointed recently as chairman and deputy chairman respectively of the Liquor Board. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new chairman on his appointment and wish him many years of productive work in that post. They are two young men who are able lawyers with an extensive knowledge of the Liquor Act. I have no doubt that they will carry out their responsibilities with great circumspection.

Only one question remains for me to reply to, and that is the question asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

†The hon. member asked a question regarding clause 14. He expressed concern regarding the man who may for instance go on a picnic on a Saturday afternoon with his wife, his basket and his bottle of cool Riesling. That man may then find that because his two boys are kicking a ball, the Police can confiscate his bottle of Riesling. That is not the case. Clause 14 makes it quite clear that the relevant section of the principal Act refers to a sports ground. That is something quite different from what the hon. member has in mind.

Only sports ground?

The provision applies only to sports grounds. Whereas in the past the section applied to sports grounds where the public were admitted by paying an admission fee, the provision now refers only to sports grounds. Any portion of a sports ground or a sports ground as such can, however, be exempted for a particular sports meeting or for a period of time. Therefore any sporting body that has regular meetings and would like to invite the public free of charge, could ask to be exempted from this provision.

Will they leave the ball alone too?

I do not think the hon. member need therefore concern himself with the implications of this provision.

*The hon. member for Edenvale also referred to the investigation by the HSRC. This legislation was introduced with the specific aim of providing for the proposals made on the basis of that investigation. He also referred to the provisions which were supposedly applicable to the sports clubs. I have already referred to that in my reply to the hon. member for Sandton.

In conclusion, the hon. member for Hercules indicated—I believe quite rightly—that sport has its place in society, but that the interests of sport must not be elevated so far as to take precedence over the interests of society. I wholeheartedly support that point of view. As a person with a great love and appreciation of sport I believe that sport does have its place in society but that we must get our priorities straight, and that sport certainly ought not to be of overwhelming importance.

The hon. member for Hercules went on to refer to the responsibility which sports administrators have to assume in the new dispensation that has come about. In this regard, too, I should like to thank him for his remarks. Sports administrators have shown that they are able to manage their affairs with great responsibility, and I believe that they will continue to do so in the future. This is perhaps a timely opportunity to point out to them that this measure may involve greater responsibilities. Let me just state clearly once again that this amendment of the law does not imply that a sports club will now be obliged in any way to admit members of any group whatsoever. The autonomy of the various sports clubs is simply being further confirmed by means of this measure. The decision as to who will be members of that club and how and where they are to practise their sport is entirely in the hands of the management and their members. Therefore no new situation is being created with regard to clubs. As in the past, they shall simply continue to manage their affairs.

I believe that apart from the amendment of section 72, to which extensive reference has been made in this debate, certain important measures are being put into effect which will be to the benefit of the wine industry, and I am sorry that we have not had the opportunity to refer in greater detail to those aspects during the course of this debate. In general, the legal amendments have been widely welcomed, and although the spotlight has tended to fall on one specific amendment in the course of the discussion here, I can assure hon. members that these measures will contribute not only to the orderly marketing of liquor, and wine in particular, but will, I believe, also contribute towards facilitating a number of situations.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago during the Committee Stage of the Status of Ciskei Bill the Chairman gave me a very important and informative exposition of his view regarding what can actually be discussed at the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage of a Bill, and I should like to repeat those remarks to the hon. the Minister. The Chairman said that the Second Reading debate is an ideological, political discussion and that the Committee Stage was there, as he put it, “to cross the t’s and dot the i’s”. He also said that the Third Reading debate was a “post-mortem”.

It is very appropriate that you should be doing it!

In this Third Reading debate I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that the discussion during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage was more of a discussion between the advocates and other lawyers. In the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister became somewhat excited at times and I think that he and I should calmly carry out a post-mortem on the legislation during the Third Reading debate. The hon. the Minister knows what a post-mortem is. I think in the first place we should discuss what or who is dead. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the second place we must establish for what reason who or what is dead and in the third place who killed it. This is what I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister must listen carefully to me now because I think he must admit that throughout the debates I sat perfectly quietly whilst he was speaking. I did not interrupt him at all.

But you said that the farmers are communists.

Who has been killed? In his first speech on the occasion of the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 23 September, col. 4599)—

The hon. the Minister expressed his appreciation for the right to a hearing and said we should retain this. At that stage he had not yet decided whether it should live or die.

The next speaker on the Government side was the hon. member for Brits and like the hon. the Minister he spoke about the appreciation that hon. members opposite had for the judge’s decision. He also said that we should retain the right to be heard in the interest of the fact that South Africa is not a police state.

At a later stage the hon. member for Pretoria West entered the debate. Now listen to what he said (Hansard, 23 September, col. 4620)—

He killed it stone dead. He admitted it baldly. Yesterday he went even further and started killing the rule of law too. Apparently he does not want to know much about the rule of law and then he proceeded to kill that too.

Tell us what your definition of the rule of law is. [Interjections.]

It is easier to say that the farmers are communists, isn’t it?

The hon. member is referring to an argument or something to which I referred, but I just want to tell him that if he wants to talk about communists or communism, he should watch what he says. [Interjections.] All that he knows about communists or communism, is what he has heard from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. [Interjections.] However, I have spent six months behind the Iron Curtain.

We can see that.

Yes, the hon. member may go ahead and say “we can see that”; I worked there. My experience behind the Iron Curtain was that of a medical doctor and I lived together with those people. It is so often said that the communists do not permit any religious freedom.

What Bill are you discussing now?

I am simply replying to a ridiculous interjection that that hon. member made. They are so quick to talk about religious freedom that is taken away.

[Inaudible.]

I should like to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation that he is not paranoic; everybody does hate him. He will know what I am talking about. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Parktown entitled to refer to me as “paranoic”?

Order! I order the hon. member for Parktown to withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this, please?

No, definitely not. Under no circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not paranoic.

Yes, that is correct.

I said: “The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is not paranoic; everybody does hate him.” [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Parktown refer to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation as paranoic or that everybody hates him?

Mr. Speaker, I said: “The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is not paranoic; everybody does hate him.”

The hon. member must withdraw the last part of his statement. He must withdraw the words “everybody does hate him”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why do you not deliver a decent speech? You have always had trouble with the farmers. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I proceed to reply to the accusation that the hon. member for Mossel Bay has now made about me?

Order! The hon. member for Parktown may proceed. I ask him, however, to confine himself to the Bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, the statement that I want to make … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the statement that I want to make is the following. I spent six months behind the Iron Curtain. I therefore know what is going on there and I detest communism … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must now confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have had experience of communists and communism and I detest it as a system, perhaps more than any other hon. member in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: One of the very typical characteristics of a paranoic person is his confused speech. I therefore want to ask you to order the hon. member for Parktown to confine himself to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I submit that by implication the hon. member for Brits is suggesting that the hon. member for Parktown is paranoic. I should like your ruling on this matter. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not believe that from what the hon. member for Brits has said it could be construed that he suggests the hon. member for Parktown is paranoic. I believe I have interrupted him before any such conclusion could be drawn from what he has said. [Interjections.]

*Order! If hon. members do not restrain themselves considerably now, I shall be obliged to prohibit all interjections. The hon. member for Parktown may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your ruling. The hon. member for Brits is such a poor doctor that he does not even know what he is diagnosing. [Interjections.]

To come back again, after approximately 15 minutes, to what I was saying earlier on, I want to point out once again that the hon. the Minister mentioned what is being killed by means of this Bill. [Interjections.] In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 23 September 1981, col. 4648)—

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to hon. members of this House as “men possessed”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this is what the hon. the Minister said. It is not I who am saying it. I am quoting what the hon. the Minister himself said. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting what the hon. the Minister said here in the House on 23 September. It is recorded as such in Hansard.

But you were already dealing with that. [Interjections.] You have passed that already.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 23 September 1981, col. 4648)—

Mr. Speaker, you must now excuse me for having to stand here and quote anecdotes—

It is not I who said that. [Interjections.] I would never say such a thing about the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I would never ever say it about the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] He sometimes looks like that to me.

Order! [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Parktown does not proceed with his speech now, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, …

Did you take lessons from Al Debbo? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote further what the hon. the Minister said. In connection with the audi alteram partem rule the hon. the Minister said—

I concede that in saying this the hon. the Minister spelled out clearly to us who has been killed and under what circumstances. This is all that I wanted to say. I did not want to fight with anyone. I do not know why he is so sensitive about this matter.

My next question is: Why was it killed?

Who is dead? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister spoke about many circumstances and many organizations. For instance, he used the following astounding terms: “Subversives”, “not in the interest of the State”, “dangerous people”, “people who cause trouble” and “those who undermine the State”. And this is actually what this amending Bill is all about. He also referred to the fact and other speakers did too … [Interjections.]

Order!

I really think that I should be given a chance now, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I request hon. members to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Other hon. members spoke about communists and the ANC and in doing so alleged that the hon. the Minister needs this measure in order to take action against these people. The hon. the Minister is the man who needs these powers. It is not the hon. the Minister of Police or the hon. the Minister of Justice; it is the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions. In connection with the processing of requests, he said that 2 500 of the 3 000 requests have already been processed. Of these there is one only, not 50, not those seeking to undermine the State, not the people who are a danger to the State, but just one for which he needs these powers. That is why I must tell hon. members now, taking into account what we have been told, that I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister wants all these powers to kill off one organization only. I feel as if something is being hidden from us. Who has actually submitted this Bill and who is deleting principles that are so important? It is the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions. As a doctor, as a medical man, I think the hon. the Minister will understand that it does not sound so good for him to have to submit such legislation. When one reads his speech, one sees how eager he is. He says it is his right, that he is not going to sit still and that he would like to have these powers very much. It reminds me of the song “Anything you can do I can do better”. However, hon. Ministers say to one another: “Anything you can ban, I can ban better; I can ban anything better than you”. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is now looking for something that he can ban, because everybody wants to get into the act now.

I just want to say that this Bill does not correspond at all with the duties of the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions. In my opinion the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police have adequate laws for taking action against the people at whom this Bill is aimed, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give his consideration to this matter once again.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out that yesterday I referred to a Third Reading as being a “post-mortem” in the figurative sense. Before this idea gains further ground in this House, I want to point out that I actually meant it in the sense of a review. I used it in the figurative sense of the word, and I therefore repeat that I consider a Third Reading as a review, but also as a preview of how the legislation is going to be implemented in practice and what effect it is going to have. Moreover, a fairly general discussion may take place during the Third Reading of legislation. I therefore call upon hon. members not to take the idea of a post-mortem in the literal sense any further.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Parktown was reviewing this legislation, he continually spoke about something that was being killed. However, thus far I have not yet been able to establish what is being killed by this Bill. However, one thing is as plain as a pikestaff, viz. that when legislation is submitted that is really in the interest of South Africa or in the interest of the security of South Africa, we experience problems with the official Opposition. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in this debate. I want to refer to what the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said about the consequences of this legislation (Hansard, 15 June 1978, col. 9542)—

Nor are we hiding it today that this is exactly what is being done here. But when we are faced with subversive action in such an apparently innocent sphere as fund-raising, we encounter problems with the official Opposition. Under the banner of the rule of law, human rights and as the hon. member for Hillbrow said, “natural justice”, we then have a chorus of protest. However, I want to ask the hon. member what natural justice is.

You should not have to ask.

If we were all perfect people, there would have been a norm. However, if this country were to be governed according to the norms of natural justice of the official Opposition, I would not want to remain here any longer. Under the banner of the rights of individuals or of organizations—regardless of whether they undermine law and order in the country of the security of the State—the official Opposition is leading the choir together with foreign critics of the existing order in South Africa. A member like the hon. member for Hillbrow rises to his feet and uses unbridled language with regard to this legislation. For instance, during the Second Reading he said—

I repeat it.

I want to ask the official Opposition if, should it become clear that an organization is raising funds—here or abroad—to promote the objects of the ANC for instance or to promote terrorism and sabotage within the country or to bring about illegal strikes or to cause disorder in South Africa, should the hon. the Minister then not have the powers in clause 29 to take action immediately?

I cannot understand why you are asking that. They have not yet received the money.

The irony of the matter is that during the debate of the original legislation in 1978 the hon. member for Bryanston accepted the situation that is being rectified at the moment, under protest, and he understood it as the hon. the Minister spelled it out clearly during his Second Reading speech. However, now a court has pointed out a loophole in the audi alteram partem rule and the hon. the Minister is rectifying it in the legislation. The aim of the original legislation is therefore being confirmed with this amendment. What has happened during this debate? The entire official Opposition is standing in line in a march of protest against the maintenance of order in our country. This was the case in 1978 too, and it has very clearly been proved in this debate as well. Why is this the case? It is so because some of the hon. members are denying that a total onslaught is raging against the existing order in this country. I referred to “some” hon. members and I want to spell this out further. For instance, if the hon. member for Yeoville displays a positive attitude on television with regard to the defence of South Africa, then the other section of that party grumbles and moans about it.

Where do you hear that?

The hon. member for Yeoville is aware of it. He has a political ear and a political nose, and no one can deny it. If the hon. members for Pinelands and Houghton attend a church service across the street and participate in reflecting on a matter in the form of a demonstration with placards, then the hon. member for Yeoville does not care for it. If another hon. member opposite says that the Defence Force did not have the moral right to remove the booty from Angola, the hon. member for Yeoville does not care for that either. It is true, and they cannot deny it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I question the relevance of the hon. member’s argument.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

If the Government wants to take firm action, as it wants to do in terms of this legislation, or if it wants to take firm action against illegal squatters at Nyanga in the interest of law and order in this country, then the official Opposition does not care for it. Similarly, they have fought this measure that is before us and which is aimed at guaranteeing order in the sphere of fund-raising in South Africa as well, from beginning to end, as they did in 1978 as well. However, the Government is not going to allow itself to be deterred, not here nor in any other sphere where the security of the State and of the inhabitants of this country comes into question. It remains the highest priority of this Government. This side of the House will continue to rectify each element in any legislation which could be used by those wishing to undermine the existing order as part of the total onslaught against South Africa. However, I just want to add something here. Law-abiding and well-meaning bona fide welfare organizations need not fear that this amendment will place any restriction whatsoever upon them. Indeed, during the three years in which the law had been in operation, it has never happened. In the 2 600 cases that have been reviewed, there was only one case that had to be put right now. In addition, such a situation should never arise in terms of this legislation in the future. It is only the official Opposition who see spectres each time security legislation is discussed in this House. That is why I should like to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the whole underlying reason for the legislation before us is to be able to handle organizations that are subversive. At the very outset, however, I want to make our point absolutely clear. If an organization is subversive, we believe that it should be exposed in broad daylight for what it is, and the only democratic way to do that is in a court of law. [Interjections.] We believe that this legislation lacks one very important principle, and that principle is governing with tempered justice.

Because the hon. the Minister has had one reversal, by the judiciary, of a decision that he took, he has over-reacted—that is my opinion—and if I may say so, that is one of the failings of the Government. Overreaction has cost this country many heartaches. I do not think one can deny that.

Much has been said about the sporting community today and about how this country has been affected. I therefore do not want to elaborate on that. We are justifiably proud of our judiciary. That is as it should be. What the Government is doing, however, with legislation of this kind, is distancing itself from the judiciary. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. Decisions should be taken dispassionately, and that means free from emotion and bias. We can, however, rely on the judiciary to do just that, but can we rely on politicians to apply that cardinal rule? We believe that legislation that is so harsh—and these are not my own words I am using to describe it; they are the words used by the hon. the Minister—is merely creating another stick with which antagonists can beat us. On this side of the House our approach to legislation has certain basic features. In our view legislation should be unprejudiced, impartial and fair-minded. That is what we believe legislation should be. This is not the case, however, as far as this legislation is concerned. If we boast that we live in a democratic society, our laws should measure up to those criteria. We do not, however, believe that the legislation before us can do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude this debate very briefly, for nothing was said about this legislation on the Opposition side which has not already been said during the past few days. However, I am not referring to the hon. member for Parktown. I really want to thank him. It is now Friday afternoon, and if one has been sitting in this House just about all the time from Monday to Friday, a speech such as his, with all the entertainment it provided for this House, is a good thing. Of course this does not refer to the contents. [Interjections.] The hon. member used a very clever expression which the Mr. Speaker had something to say about in a previous debate, i.e. a post-mortem. However, that hon. member still has a long way to go. If he had been serving in this House for a longer period, he may have known that one actually discusses the effect of the legislation during the Third Reading debate. That is what one discusses during the Third Reading debate. One does not ask who has been killed, who killed him and who buried him. [Interjections.] Nor does it matter where one spent one’s youth, whether you were behind the Iron Curtain or whether you feel sorry for the communists. That is not what we are concerned with here. What we are concerned with here is the effect of the legislation. The principle is discussed during the Second Reading and the details during the Committee Stage. During the Third Reading members may argue with each other like adults about the effect of the legislation if it were to be implemented in that way. In any event I want to thank him for a speech which was one of the climaxes of the entertainment this week. Perhaps one should award the Oscar for the best interjection this week to that hon. member who asked him whether he had attended classes given by Al Debbo. I think that is the very best and the most appropriate interjection I have heard this week.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his level-headed contribution on how one ought to see this whole situation. I do not want to go into the whole matter again, except to say that the effect of the legislation will be that when the Minister receives information from the intelligence network that an organization which is putting in an application definitely has the intent of undermining the State …

How can you test it?

… of trying to undermine the Government, of creating problems for law and order in this country and of endangering the way of life of the people who wish to live quietly and peacefully, the Minister must be able of taking action against that organization. This is the effect of the legislation. As I said yesterday, it will not affect the Boy Scouts, the Voortrekkers, the Lions or any other organization which is collecting money to render a real service to this country and its people. They have nothing to fear. The people who will have to fear the effect of this legislation are those who are planning to raise funds here or abroad and then to use them in this country, not to the benefit of this country, but to the detriment of this country and its inhabitants. This is the effect of this legislation. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall implement all the facets of this legislation meticulously. So far there has only been one organization against which action had to be taken, but it is nevertheless not a valid argument to say that because there has only been one, this legislation is not necessary. There may be other organizations of this sort. Time will tell. However, I doubt whether one shall have to use this provision to any great extent in future. This legislation is in its entirety an instrument which will help to ensure the security of this country.

†The hon. member for South Coast spoke about “over-reaction”. Does the hon. member expect me as the responsible Minister to sit on the sideline while I know what the real aims of the legislation are and that the legislators at the time had made a mistake? According to the judge they did not put into the Act what they should have or what both Opposition parties thought was in the Act.

How can you say it was a mistake?

You are reflecting on your predecessor.

Sir, I explained this last night. The hon. member for Hillbrow does not listen when one is speaking. I said that the intention with this legislation was to remove the audi alteram partem rule, and the Opposition saw it in this light during the 1978 debate. The hon. member for Bryanston attacked the hon. the Minister on that score and said that the Minister was depriving the court of its powers. Neither the hon. member for Hillbrow nor the law advisers spotted the omission at the time. The judge then interpreted it in a different way. I have now returned to this House to restore the original aims and objects of this legislation, as indicated by the Van Rooyen Commission. The Commission indicated that this was the course we would have to take and that is why I introduced this Bill. It is not concerned with the one case only. There may not be another case of this nature, but at least we have the machinery now to ensure that the problems will not arise again.

I do not want to take this matter any further. I discussed the principle during the Second Reading.

It is a Draconian measure.

Its effect will be to compel people who wish to raise money in order to utilize it not for the benefit of this country, but for subversion or in an effort to get at the Government, to tread warily after this provision has been approved by Parliament.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, the hon. member for Kempton Park had just concluded his speech. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Kempton Park that we in the NRP will be supporting this Bill. One of the main reasons for this is the one which the hon. member for Kempton Park actually motivated during the course of his speech. I believe that he quoted from what a Commissioner of Roads in the United States of America had said on one occasion. He said—I think I have it correctly—that the riches in the United States did not make the roads but that rather it was the roads that had helped to create the riches. We agree with those sentiments, Sir. There is much truth in them because a modern industrial economy such as ours certainly requires good communications and good transport facilities. I think it is generally accepted that the roads in South Africa today, especially our national roads, are of world class and that they have and still are making a valuable contribution towards our economy.

Having said that, I do believe—and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider what I am about to say—that it is extremely important, as with most other material assets, for our roads to meet the needs of the day and not those of the far distant future. I believe that this is particularly so in these days of inflation, especially when one considers the great demands upon our capital resources in respect of an area of activity such as our industrial growth and as far as our educational needs are concerned. Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have to be very careful to ensure that we are not being over-ambitious in our capital expenditure on our national roads, relative to the needs for today.

I will concede—and in fact I appealed to the hon. the Minister in this regard during the debate on the Transport Vote—that there are certain stretches of national highways that are of top priority and which should be completed. However, I also want to appeal to him to ensure that we are not being too extravagant. I say this, Sir, because over the past few years I have travelled fairly regularly to the United Kingdom, and I recall having been there about four or five years ago at a time when that country was facing a great economic squeeze. I noticed then that the highways on which I had often travelled were not being maintained according to the same standards as had been the case in the past. I asked an acquaintance of mine what the reason for this was and he told me that they were having rather a hard time as far as money was concerned. It had been decided that in order to conserve the available money for other more important needs at that particular time, certain road maintenance operations were not being done for the time being but that these would be resumed at some time in the future. The hon. the Minister who is a farmer just like I am will know that when a farmer faces a drought he tightens his belt and makes use of his capital resources to obtain the bare essentials in order to survive. I think that we are in that particular position roadwise today. I say this because clause 1 in this Bill before us today asks Parliament to give the Minister the power and, through him, the National Roads Commission, to borrow money in order to complete the construction of certain roads. The reason for this is that the National Roads Fund has run out of money. The hon. the Minister has told us on a number of occasions this session that the prices of contracts that were put out to tender are anything from 30% to 40% above the costs as originally estimated. The result is that certain contracts have had to be delayed. Using loan capital is one way of trying to ensure that the important stretches of road are completed. I could take this opportunity to criticize the hon. the Minister again, as I did during the discussion of the Transport Affairs Vote, because 18 months ago the levy on the price of petrol that was paid into the National Roads Fund was actually reduced. I recall that at that time I questioned the then hon. Minister of Transport Affairs about this and asked him whether it was a wise thing to do. He assured me at that time that everything was fine and that there would be sufficient funds, but we now find that he has been proved to be incorrect.

We are being asked to allow the hon. the Minister to raise loan money in the open market in order to complete these works, as I have said. I think the hon. member for Berea raised an interesting question when he pointed out that when one borrows money, it eventually has to be redeemed. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us how these moneys that are to be borrowed are to be redeemed.

When one builds a public amenity such as roads—and I have hinted at this already—I do not believe that one must over-burden this generation with the cost of an amenity that future generations are going to benefit by.

Why not?

The hon. the Minister asks: “Why not?” Because one can overburden this generation with excessive capital costs for public amenities to the extent that we shall not get the necessary degree of industrial growth that we could otherwise possibly obtain. Therefore there is some merit in borrowing money for an amenity that has a long life-span and allow future generation to pay for it. However, I question whether it is a good time to borrow now when interest rates are as high as they are. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister is not going to plunge the National Roads Fund into any great debt over the next few years when one considers, as I say, the interest rates that are being applied today.

However, I should like to make one suggestion to the hon. the Minister as to how he could have overcome this problem. Whichever way one looks at it, if these loans are to be redeemed, I would imagine, as the hon. member for Berea has hinted, that they are going to be redeemed by means of an increase in the price of petrol. Would it not have been better, through consultations with the hon. the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, to have considered reducing the levy on petrol which is presently levied in order to finance Sasol and allowing the investing public, who have cash, to invest in another share issue? This excessive supply of money is one of the problems that the hon. the Minister of Finance has in his battle against inflation and that is why there is a credit squeeze today. There is too much money floating around. Would it not have been better to reduce the levy for Sasol and rather to have obtained funds for the development of Sasol by means of another share issue, as has already been done a year or so ago? Then, by not reducing the price of petrol, although we would have liked to have seen the price of petrol reduced, one could have taken a cent or two of the Sasol levy to finance the construction of roads. I put this suggestion to the hon. the Minister and I think it is something to which he and his colleagues in the Cabinet should apply their minds. We in these benches would like to see more public involvement in Sasol as far as the investing public is concerned.

So far I have only spoken on clause 1. Clause 2 concerns giving the National Roads Commission and the Government the power to enter into agreements with neighbouring countries. I think it has been made quite clear that we are not here considering former homeland States of South Africa, but rather sovereign independent States such as Lesotho or Botswana. While we agree in principle that this is a good thing—we have often talked about the development of Capricorn Africa and the need for South Africa to assist its neighbouring States with our technology and our know-how—I should just like the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance, especially in the light of clause 1, that we are not going to get involved in any financial way in assisting these people because, after all, in clause 1 he is asking to borrow money because the National Roads Fund has run out of money.

Having said that, we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park said yesterday that all expansions necessitate new roads too. In all probability this is true, but when Henry Ford produced his very first motorcar, he was in actual fact complying with man’s need for mobility. Therefore, in the first place it was not his aim to provide for man’s desire to possess motor-cars as such. Therefore I think that we should make quite sure of the fact that we must not necessarily provide for a possible increased demand for motor vehicles. We must also always bear in mind clearly that there are indeed other ways in which people could be transported.

I want to confine myself chiefly to clause 1 of the Bill. As we have already said, we are supporting this provision. Indeed, this Bill is giving the National Transport Commission increased borrowing powers. It is a step that we welcome because we know that the principal source of financing for the national road building programme was chiefly the levy on fuel. Of course, since the revenue flows from the consumption of fuel, it means that generally the Exchequer had to provide loans so that capital could be available. This resulted in the levy on fuel usually being utilized for the settlement of loans rather than for the formation of capital.

We also know that the major costs with regard to road building are incurred during the original or construction phase. Therefore, if the Exchequer continually has to provide capital, it will of course mean that the road building programme would have to compete with funds allocated for other votes. The major portion of the cost with regard to the provision of roads is therefore not distributed over the period in which the benefits are derived from it. We know that a sound principle of financing capital works—regardless of whether it is intended for the State or for the private sector—is to regulate the period of financing in such a way that it can be better adjusted to the lifetime of the project as such. If we obtain funds from outside, particularly from abroad, such tremendous pressure is not being exerted upon our own limited capital resources. At the same time it is not exerting such a tremendous pressure on the present consumers either, because the loans can be repaid while the project is being used. Therefore, the possibilities for financing are much more flexible.

We also know that the revenue decreases in real terms, for instance that obtained from levies, due to the fuel crisis. People travel less and therefore use less fuel. Smaller cars are also being used, which in turn also use less fuel. More efficient vehicles also use less fuel. Last but not least, I think that the price that one pays for progress is linked to better roads and the consequent saving of fuel. Of course, this gives rise to a decrease in income, and one can therefore almost say that more and more geese are laying fewer golden eggs! Therefore, we know that the hon. the Minister is in fact experiencing problems in this regard, particularly with regard to revenue. In the third place we also know that the cost of road building is still on the increase, that it is increasing even more rapidly than the normal rate of inflation, and that the road building programme is falling further and further behind, with the result that fewer roads can be built for the same real price.

Whilst we are now supporting this measure, and also agree that we do in fact need other funds in order to carry out essential projects, I nevertheless also want to address a few words of warning to the hon. the Minister. With the increased borrowing powers, the National Transport Commission must beware in the first place of doing what the public usually does in inflationary conditions. Therefore, they must not decide to buy now because there is a possibility that they may not be able to afford it next year. We are now experiencing a period of high rates of interests and high rates of inflation. Therefore, I believe that incurring increased expenditure at this stage in order to make good the backlog, will make just as great a contribution towards inflation.

In the second place, the National Transport Commission must of course co-ordinate the building of roads with the total transport system, particularly with rail transport on the main traffic routes in the country, including urban passenger transport, so that the very improvement of roads will not undermine the rail transport system and result in it not being possible ultimately to achieve the best total transport system. I think I referred to Du Toit’s Kloof as an example in a previous speech. The main railway line is not nearly being utilized to the full. If one were to spend a large amount on the tunnel at this stage, one may possibly be able to put the funds to better use by making better use of the railway line.

In the third place we know that the systematic erosion of real revenue has also obliged us to take a more realistic view with regard to building national roads so that standards no longer necessarily comply with a specific highway standard, but are rather aimed at the specific traffic that is anticipated under the circumstances. We welcome this realism. I know the hon. the Minister is still new to transport affairs, but he will yet learn that traditionally, road engineers are terrible prophets of doom. They always say that there will be terrible chaos if one does not tackle this project or the other. In this regard one can think of some of the proposals that the Driessen Commission made. They said that if this or that were not done, terrible chaos would follow.

We know that it was said during the late ’fifties with regard to Pretoria that if the full system were not completed by approximately 1970, the entire city would become totally congested. We know that those proposals are not nearly approaching completion. It is now 1981 and Pretoria is still standing. In addition, they have transformed their so-called catastrophe into an asset, because they are now mixing business and pleasure. Instead of a boring journey to work on a freeway, the journey to work and back these days is an exciting experience for those people. It tests one’s driving skill, it is a challenge to self-preservation, it is an adventure, it is an escape valve for frustration and an enjoyable chase from robot to robot.

The legislation provides that it will be easier to obtain capital for road building purposes. However, the problem is that obtaining capital as such is not the only qualifying factor when one comes to road building. The construction industry as such is also a restricting factor. In South Africa we are on the threshold of a tremendous challenge as far as development is concerned, which is generally dependent on the construction industry. I am thinking here of the building of schools, the development of the rural environment, the provision of employment, housing, urbanization, township development, water utilization, the mining of minerals and mineral natural resources such as coal.

The factor that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister in this regard, is that there is a great deal of overlapping with regard to the requirements of the construction industry, because those requirements are necessary not only for roads, but also for all these other developments to which I have just referred. The same equipment that is used for building national roads can, for instance, be used for township development, dam building, the mining of surface mines and road building in order to make the rural areas more accessible. Too great a demand for construction projects in general therefore results in excessive demands being made of the capacity of the industry and this also causes inefficiency, less competition and consequently, inflation which pushes up the cost of road building and all the other developments more than is necessary. This means that the object of the legislation, viz., to be able to build now, may possibly be frustrated. I just want to ask for the production capacity of the total construction industry to be taken fully into account because we know that this has not always been done in the past. A further aspect is the provision of employment by the construction industry. Road construction compares very poorly with township development, for instance, when it comes to the provision of employment. Expenditure to the tune of approximately R30 million on a township development project, i.e. for streets, houses, and so on, can provide 1 000 people with employment for approximately three years, i.e. 3 000 man years. However, if the same amount is spent on a national road project, it would provide employment to a mere 200 people for approximately three years, i.e. 600 man years. Therefore, this is a ratio of 5 to 1, and this is with regard to this sphere only, whilst in township development the ripple effect influences the building material industry which in turn stimulates the manufacturing industry.

In the final instance I want to exhort the hon. the Minister to be careful not to use the borrowing power too freely, because ultimately the community has to pay in any event. I know that road engineers can put their case in a very persuasive manner. Usually they can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that an investment in a road can in fact bring about savings and that it is definitely a lucrative project from an economic viewpoint.

I have already spoken about the coordinating transport system, but the total ability of the community to maintain a specific growth rate, must also be taken into account. In this respect too we must speak about greater co-ordination and we must not simply say that since we now have the power to build more roads, that we are going to build roads. An expenditure of R30 million, for instance, on roads or schools will have exactly the same effect when we talk about growth rate or gross domestic product. Whilst I agree that it would be a pity to waste energy on a road which does not answer completely to its purpose, it would be just as much of a pity, if not more so, if we were to waste human energy because, for instance, there were not adequate school facilities.

During the debate on the Vote I have already said that South Africa has been blessed with a road transport network which is unique under the circumstances, and I believe that if we weigh up all the systems that a community needs against one another, roads as such comply with the demands of the time to a larger extent than education, for instance. I therefore trust that the hon. the Minister will implement his new freedoms with a great deal of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for supporting this Bill. I was told that if I gave adequate replies to the questions put to me, they would give me all the stages today. Therefore I am going to be very friendly and satisfy the hon. members.

Don’t put up the price of petrol.

That is the reason why we have this Bill before us, because the Cabinet would not allow me to increase the price of petrol by 1 cent.

‘Now we are faced with this difficulty. The hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked whether the loan had to be repaid. This loan will be raised with the Public Debt Commissioners. The Department of Transport is at present negotiating with the Treasury on the inclusion of an amount obtained from the fuel levy in order to augment the inadequate revenue of the National Road Fund. The idea is to make provision for this amount, too, in the loan redemption.

The hon. member went on to ask whether an increase in the fuel levy accruing to the National Road Fund would have to be borne by the motorist. An increase will not necessarily entail an increase in the consumer price of fuel. However, this is a policy aspect which is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport. An increase in the revenue rate of the Road Fund will, as at present, have to be covered out of the customs and excise duty on fuel. When an increase is being considered, it is for the Department of Finance to indicate whether it can be borne by the State Revenue Account or whether it has to be passed on in part or in full to the consumer. I asked for an additional cent, but the Cabinet refused.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a suggestion to which we can pay attention. He suggested that we should take some of the levies for Sasol in next year’s budget and allow the public to take Sasol shares. In other words, he suggested that the public shareholding in Sasol should be increased. That is a solution. For the present I want to give the hon. member the assurance that no increase in the price of petrol is envisaged. Mr. Speaker, I even went so far as to suggest the introduction of toll gates to obtain the funds.

*We do not have the funds at our disposal, but I am pleased that hon. members are supporting the measure. The hon. member for Kempton Park made a sound contribution and emphasized the importance of communications. The hon. member for Greytown, too, showed understanding for this matter. He made a sound contribution. He also asked us not to act incorrectly as far as our planning was concerned.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we must get our priorities right in times of drought, and I agree that that is very important. The hon. member for Berea spoke about financial losses and losses as far as our neighbouring States are concerned. We are only going to give help to neighbouring States if they pay the costs. We will help them as far as the know-how is concerned, but we are not going to pay any money in the process.

*Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that all the stages of the legislation can now be taken.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill aims at removing the dead wood from our Statute Book, to use the idiomatic expression. The Acts mentioned in the schedule to the Bill, the laws that are to be repealed, are all Acts that have either served a unique purpose, or that were made for circumstances that no longer exist, or have become obsolete for other reasons and consequently have little or no force of law any longer.

†It might be asked, Mr. Speaker: Why, if these statutes no longer have any force, need they be repealed by an Act of Parliament? It may be said that a repeal does not have the effect of wiping the statute off the slate and that nothing can hide the fact that the statute had been there. One of the answers to this would simply be one of convenience. If a publisher, private or official, wishes to publish a collection of current statutes, he might, with research, ascertain which statutes are spent or obsolete. Writers, practitioners and officials might also spend their time and resources in eliminating statutes which might, but no longer do, have any legal effect. It is better that this work should be done once and authoritatively by Parliament.

The reason for this Bill, however, goes further than that. It will be recalled that early in 1980 when the hon. the Prime Minister addressed this House in connection with the rationalization of the Public Service, he also indicated that all legislation would be examined with a view to repealing or amending obsolete legislation and, ultimately, consolidating and simplifying all remaining measures.

*However, the rationalization of laws is a major task, one that is not accomplished overnight, particularly due to the fact that the work related to the process has to be carried out by the staff at our disposal, over and above their normal duties. In view of the extent of the task of rationalizing the laws, the S.A. Law Commission, to which this task was entrusted by statute, cannot be expected to accomplish it alone. Consequently, all State departments have been requested to review all the Acts administered by them, with a view to repealing or amending obsolete or inexpedient provisions, eliminating duplicative or overlapping provisions and the ultimate consolidation and simplification of the remaining measures.

Now one can tackle the Statute Book vigorously with the pruning shears, as if it were a forest, but then discover shortly afterwards that one was wasting one’s time and energy on a tree that was already dead and should rather be removed, or that one was pruning a tree that should rather be removed to make place for a new one.

When one deals with legislation, one is required to look over it and weigh it up thoroughly before one sets about it with the pruning shears. That is why we deem it not only practicable but necessary, first of all to clear the forest of the dead trees so that a survey can be made of what remains and consultation can take place on what to do with it.

Therefore the Bill must be viewed as a first, but essential step with a view to establishing a consolidated, modernized Statute Book, cleared of all obsolete, unnecessary provisions. I do not want to allege at all that the laws mentioned in the schedules to the Bill, are the only ones that are obsolete in their entirety or no longer serve any purpose. It is only those Acts that are obviously obsolete and those that we have been able to ascertain in the time at our disposal, no longer serve any purpose. There may be others too, and as we progress with the process of the rationalization of laws, it will presently become apparent which other Acts are of the aforementioned nature, and we shall come to this House and ask for the repeal thereof.

The repeal of the Acts mentioned in the schedules to the Bill, will also have the additional benefit in the meantime of bringing about a saving in printing costs, since it will no longer be necessary to print those Acts when annotated and consolidated sets of laws are published, as is still the case with many of those Acts.

A long list of Acts is contained in the schedules to the Bill, and I do not want to waste the time of the House by going into each Act in detail. However, I want to mention that in order to prevent repealing provisions that are still applicable, consultation has taken place as far as possible with the bodies that have an interest in the Acts and that the Bill was also published for general notice in the Gazette. No objection has been raised to the repeal of the Acts concerned.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no quarrel with the reasons that the hon. the Minister has put forward for submitting this specific measure. There are two ways of removing obsolete Acts from the Statute Book. The one way is to go about it as the hon. the Minister is doing in this case, viz. to draw up a list of all the Acts that are apparently no longer applicable and that are no longer of any practical value for one reason or other. The other way is to consolidate Acts, i.e. to take one specific subject or principal Act and then to amend everything that has to be amended in that connection, and then to place a consolidated measure on the Statute Book. This method is one that is advocated by lawyers and legal practitioners in particular, because it simplifies their task in many respects and because it also gives the man in the street easier access to certain provisions of a specific Act. I know that many hon. members in this House who are laymen in the legal sphere, often find it difficult to fit proposed amendments into an existing Act. This applies to people outside this House too. Therefore, consolidation is a very valuable method of simplifying matters for legal practitioners and the man in the street.

In this list of approximately 800 Acts there is apparently no Act that could still be of any value or use to the community. The fist begins with 1910 and ends with the first schedule in 1979 and approximately all the Acts in the list are appropriation acts, financial acts and measures of a similar nature.

Of course, it is clear that we support the Second Reading of this Bill with a great deal of appreciation. However, there is also a point of criticism that I want to raise. When this step was originally announced by members of the Government in the House and outside, the repeal of 800 Acts on the Statute Book was linked to the rationalization of the Public Service. I think the hon. the Minister referred once again today in his Second Reading speech to the fact that it is related to the rationalization of the Public Service. This is also the reason why the hon. the Minister of State Administration has been given the responsibility of introducing this measure. Now I find it an obvious question how one rationalizes the Public Service and saves manpower in the Public Service by passing this Bill. I do not think there is any public servant who at this moment still has anything to do with the maintenance, the implementation or the application of any measure at issue in this Bill, in the process of carrying out his work. The decision that gave rise to this measure, was used to allege that we are participating here in the rationalization, the improvement and the streamlining of the Public Service, but this is not the case. It was announced, and a great deal of fuss was made about it by newspapers and others, that in this regard we are dealing here with a very praiseworthy step, but in actual fact this is not the case.

Do not listen to the newspapers.

All that we have here, is a list of obsolete and spent measures. The fact that they are being repealed, does not change the position of anyone. Although we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, it is in fact a measure that does not change anything about anything.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was occupied once again this afternoon with the influence that the newspapers have on his speeches. The other evening when the hon. member appeared on television in a play in which he had to pass judgment as a judge with regard to a case that was being depicted there, I wondered on what legal principle he had based his judgment. I went through the list of Acts that are about to be repealed now, but I could not find that specific Act there. It appears to me as if that Act does not exist. It seems to me that it was simply one of the Prog-laws again, the ones that they make themselves, that he applied that night.

No, it really exists.

The object of this measure is indeed to remove obsolete, spent legislation from the Statute Book. It is also true that one of the aims in the programme of rationalization is to bring about a consolidated, simplified set of legal provisions. Since the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister that he is aiming at rationalizing the Public Service, we have already progressed beyond expectations. Government departments have been coordinated, combined and the numbers have been decreased. Now we have this legislation before us in order to remove the so-called dead wood from the legal provisions, to bring about the repeal of obsolete legislation and to co-ordinate the simplification of all remaining measures. We believe that this step will be welcomed by all. In this way the administration of justice is being served and promoted. The basic idea is to establish a Statute Book which contains valid provisions only. I therefore want to express the hope that this repeal of obsolete and spent legislation is only the first step towards achieving the ultimate goal, viz. a purified, consolidated and simplified Statute Book. Therefore, we on this side of the House are very pleased to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, correct that none of the Acts listed in the Bill have any legal effect today, and about 98% of them are old Appropriation Acts and Railways and Harbours Appropriation Acts, and various other financial measures. The removal of these Acts will clear a lot of shelf space in a lot of legal offices. That will be the sole effect of this legislation.

Amongst these Acts there is, however, the odd bit of South African history. I crave the indulgence of the House to refer to one or two of the interesting pieces of legislation which are not financial measures but form part of our history. The first one I should like to refer to is Act No. 7 of 1912 which repeals the original Natal Bank (Limited) Laws 1888 to 1912 Private Act.

This particular measure has personal nostalgia for me, because amongst the original directors of the bank were both my great-grandfathers, viz. James Raw and Richard Vause. Richard Vause, of course, had one skeleton in his cupboard in the sense that he was also the founder of The Natal Mercury, so the family has always questioned his contribution to unbiased and free journalism! This particular bank was established on 1 May 1854 in Pietermaritzburg. Amongst the directors and proprietors of the Bank were some of the original pioneer figures of Natal of that time. Amongst them were George Cato, James Raw and Richard Vause, whom I have mentioned already. The original shareholders included a Mr. P. Ferreira and the bank records a Mr. J. P. Hoffman, who they say was the President of the Orange Free State. That was, of course, J. J. Hoffman, but according to the bank’s information, he was the same Hoffman possibly related to the President of the Orange Free State. At that time the bank was held by seven shareholders, and later by shareholders of a company which again was part of my family. The three shareholders of the bank were then George Henry Raw, Edith Sarah Raw and Mary Raw. So, Mr. Speaker, the repeal of this Act is the repeal of a little family history as well as of some of the history of Natal. The only thing that still remains of the Natal Bank which, in terms of this Act which is being repealed, became entitled to be bought by another bank is two “Natal Bank” branches. The bank which bought it is Barclays Bank and it is now a branch of Barclays Bank. Now the only Raw connection with it is that before I can put my name forward for nomination at election times, I have to approach the bank manager to obtain his permission to extend my overdraft before I can stand for election! Therefore the bank still has an influence on the Raw family.

They get you going, Vause!

There are some other interesting measures that are being repealed, Sir. Earlier this afternoon we were discussing the rule of law. In terms of Act 1 of 1914, not only did a Minister not have power to take arbitrary action but Parliament itself had to deport nine people by name from South Africa for disturbing labour relations. [Interjections.] No, there were no Raws among them, Sir. These were names such as Poutsma, Bain, Crawford, Waterston, Mason, McKerrel, Livingstone, Watson and Morgan. I had hoped that I might find the ancestors of some of those hon. colleagues there, but unfortunately, I could not. The point I want to make is that in those days Parliament itself actually considered and debated a measure to deport by name people who were disturbing labour relations. I think that my hon. friends of the official Opposition can count themselves lucky that Parliament does not discuss that sort of measure any longer! [Interjections.]

Another one of these Acts is called the Black Voters Relief Act. This was to give relief to Black voters. However, as far as I can understand, the relief was to raise the qualifications! There is another one which in 1922 allowed angora goats to be exported from South Africa. Before that, apparently one could not export angora goats from this country.

I come now to a very important one and here I want to ask for an assurance from the hon. the Minister that there will never be a repeat of this particular measure. What we are repealing here is a measure that reduced the salaries of Cabinet Ministers and MPs. [Interjections.] In case there is anybody who is gloating and rubbing his hands, it also reduced the salaries of public servants. MPs’ salaries were reduced from £700 per annum—not per month—to £630 and any allowances they received were reduced by 10%. Ministers, I am glad to say, were given special treatment. Their salaries were not reduced by 10%. They were reduced by 15% to enable them to set an example to the rest of the country. As far as the Public Service was concerned those officials earning less than £199 per annum had their salaries reduced by only 3½%. They formed the middle income group. As the scale started climbing to the maximum of £899 per annum, they caught up with the MP’s and their salaries were reduced by 10% as well. This Act is now being repealed by the Bill before us and, as I say, I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that it will never be re-enacted in any shape or form.

I want to mention one final Act for the older parliamentarians or politicians. I refer to Act No. 2 of 1948. This is an Act which many hon. members may remember. It was the United Kingdom Gold Loan Act which dealt with the £80 million in gold that South Africa loaned to the United Kingdom at the time. What a rich government we were before this Government took over! [Interjections.]

So, Sir, while we support the measure and will vote for it, we shall do so with nostalgic memories while looking back to the good times when South Africa was able to dish out solid gold to its friends as a gesture of good faith and friendship.

Mr. Speaker, at this hour of the afternoon I suppose it is not necessary to be eloquent in thanking the hon. members who are supporting the Bill. Nevertheless, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members for the support they have given the Bill.

Of course, the Bill forms part of the rationalization of the Public Service. As the hon. member for Johannesburg North rightly pointed out, this step was presented as part of the package when rationalization was announced. Referring to the hon. member’s speech and remarks, I wish to say that it was not the intention, of course, to announce the repeal of the Acts concerned with great fanfare. As was said in the introductory speech, the intention was actually to clear the field and to prepare for the rationalization which is to follow. However, I want to put it this way: One does not rationalize dead wood. We are first getting rid of the dead wood. The process of rationalization is on the agenda, and as we proceed with it, it will be announced from time to time and we shall come to this House.

The hon. member’s question is quite understandable. We also regard this as the immediate objective, but we are now engaged in the initial activity, which means that we are moving the dead wood from the Statute Book. As I say, I referred to this in my introductory speech when I spoke about ultimately consolidating and simplifying all remaining measures. That is on the programme of action for the future.

The criticism that nothing is being changed is a little pessimistic. I think we have done something important by at least taking this step.

I also thank the hon. member for Gezina, who rightly indicated that this is only the first step. It is only the first step, so we can expect many important steps in the future. I did not count the exact number, but there are approximately 790, so it is a little lower than the number given in reply to a question by an hon. member of the Opposition earlier this session, when I estimated the number at approximately 806.

†The hon. member for Durban Point referred to some of the Acts which are of historic importance. I can appreciate the nostalgia with which he referred to forebears who made an important contribution and who were pioneers closely connected with some of these Acts. I want to point out that we are not repealing the history of those Acts; that history remains and will for generations to come. Those generations will appreciate the contributions made by the forebears of the hon. member. Therefore this is no “Raw” package deal… [Interjections.] … in so far as the hon. member’s forebears are concerned!

*The hon. member asked me to give an undertaking that a certain Act which reduced the salaries of Ministers and MPs would not be re-enacted. I do not want to be in a hurry to give such an undertaking, because it seems to me that finance and the economy can take some strange turns, and one never knows how situations may develop, but as far as the foreseeable future is concerned, it does not seem to me that this is something the hon. member need fear in his lifetime.

It is not necessary for me to say much more. One could quote interesting passages from this list of legislation. If you would just allow me half a minute, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to some of these Acts. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the Natal Bank laws. These laws were all repealed in terms of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, No. 78 of 1967. So their repeal is actually a mere formality. The hon. member must realize that we are not repealing history itself. This is a very interesting episode in history, and it could even be the subject of research for post-graduate study of some kind, even for undergraduate study. Perhaps the hon. member knows someone in the Raw family who would like to go into that matter. Then someone could perhaps write a thesis about this matter.

Then there is the Maclear and Elliot Districts Further Provisions Act, 1913. This is a well-known part of our country. In that legislation, the Governor-General is authorized to declare the districts concerned to be one or more fiscal districts. The Divisional Councils Ordinance—Ordinance No. 18 of 1976—contains detailed provisions in connection with divisional councils, and has therefore rendered that 1913 Act superfluous.

Then there is the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Act of 1914. I do not know whether there are any hon. members who would like that Act to be revived. It was an Act which indemnified the Government and officials for actions taken in the process of maintaining law and order.

Then I could also refer, perhaps, to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, Limited, Railway (Private) Act, 1915. This was an Act relating to a siding in the Piketberg constituency, in which a by-election is now being held. It is a siding between Porterville and Bonne Esperance farm, in the Tulbagh vicinity. It is believed that this is now a matter of the past.

Then there is Act No. 19 of 1915, the War Stores (Commission) Act. This was in connection with the commission which had to investigate alleged irregularities in connection with Government contracts. It has been found that—at least, we hope so—that investigation has now been concluded after 66 years. So this Act can also disappear.

Furthermore, there is the Profiteering Act, Act No. 27 of 1920. Those who investigated the matter have concluded that after 61 years, this Act has no more legal force.

Finally, I just want to refer to Act No. 47 of 1934, the Legalization of Angola Marriages Act. Applications for registration of those laws had to be made within 12 months. This period has now expired. It was a non-recurring process, but the Act is still on the Statute Book. So it is obvious that this Act, too, may as well disappear.

Finally, my sincere thanks to hon. members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, an amendment which I shall move at a later stage. First allow me, however, to make a few general remarks about the Bill.

In the first place, on behalf of my colleague and myself, I want to express our appreciation for the opportunity we were afforded of having a frank discussion of this Bill and of its particulars on the Select Committee. In particular, I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity we were afforded of openly stating our point of view. In this connection I also appreciate the conduct of the chairman of the Select Committee, his impartiality and the fact that he never restricted us in the discussion of the separate clauses and of our amendments. Although there were some unbridgeable differences, I must say that the discussion was nevertheless conducted in a very good spirit. On behalf of my colleague, too, I want to express our sincere appreciation for this. Furthermore, I want to express my thanks for the fact that the hon. the Minister made available this report of the “Komitee van Ondersoek na Universiteits- en Verwante Naskoolse Onderwys van Swartes in Blankegebied”. It was a report which meant a great deal to us because it contained a great deal of interesting and stimulating information and facts. We are grateful for having had this available to us. As the hon. the Minister himself indicated, this committee consisted of experts in various spheres and of prominent people. Because the report contains such a wealth of interesting and important information, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to make that report available to a wider circle.

In principle, we welcome the establishment of additional tertiary educational institutions to meet the growing need for post-school academic training in the Black community. It is very clear that because of the change in the labour set-up, in the field of manpower, we are in fact on the threshold of a great expansion in the provision of training facilities of a non-academic nature with a view to the further schooling of our manpower to provide skilled and technically trained people in particular. It would appear to be essential that that expansion in the non-academic sphere should be accompanied by the creation of more and more facilities for the further academic training of Blacks. In fact, the need for such training was underlined by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, when he indicated that in 1980, if one includes the figures for the independent States, more than 22 000 Black pupils passed the Std. 10 examination, more than 6 000 of whom obtained matriculation exemption, with more than 16 000 obtaining the Senior Certificate. It is anticipated that in 1990, more than 22 000 Blacks will obtain matriculation exemption and approximately 45 000 Blacks will obtain the senior certificate. In the year 2000, as the hon. the Minister indicated, at least 50 000 Black pupils will obtain matriculation exemption and more than 128 000 will obtain the senior certificate.

When we consider the report of the De Lange Commission, as reported on in the newspapers, we shall have to initiate a programme for the training of 250 000 Blacks as teachers over the next two decades in order to bring about some measure of parity in education. This gives us some indication of the enormous task that awaits us in this connection.

Because of the increasing urbanization of the Black population and the concentration of Blacks in the metropolitan areas and in our other cities and towns where there is an intensification of economic activities, it is essential that further training facilities for Blacks be provided where those people are. We therefore welcome the fact that provision is being made in this Bill for the establishment of this university in the so-called White area of South Africa. We on this side of the House have always opposed the fact that with few exceptions, the Blacks in the urban areas have been forced to attend the universities in the homelands. In this connection, in the light of the objections we have always raised, we welcome the fact that this kind of facility is now actually being created for Blacks outside the homelands.

It is generally known that it is the standpoint of this party that all universities in South Africa should have the right to decide for themselves whom they wish to admit as students. We regard as unacceptable the present general arrangement with regard to the admission of Black students to so-called White universities and also with regard to the admission of White students to Black universities, i.e. that the admission of those students is subject to ministerial approval. We also find that the basis on which that approval is granted is unacceptable. A student is normally allowed only if identical or similar courses are not available at the other universities. I want to emphasize once again that this arrangement is unacceptable to us, with regard to the Bill as well.

It is quite clear that White universities throughout the country have considerable unutilized capacity in certain faculties and departments, and if such capacity could be utilized, it could to some extent meet the present need for academic training for Blacks outside the national States. For this reason, we once again advocate that it should be left to the discretion of such universities to decide for themselves to what extent they wish to admit Black students on their campusses. If this were done, it would give concrete expression to the declared intention of the Government to move away from discrimination. We would also regard it as a positive contribution to the improvement of race relations in South Africa.

The committee, which was initially chaired by the hon. the Minister of National Education, who was later replaced by Prof. Retief, actually declared itself in its report to be in favour of an open university as far as the proposed university is concerned.

However, it is clear that even if we did utilize the unutilized capacity of the existing White universities, it would still not be sufficient to meet the needs of the Blacks outside the homelands. Therefore it is essential that we take cognizance of the nature of the university, but especially of its location. In this connection there are a few problems which we discussed on the Select Committee. In the first place, there is the location of the university, and while the original Bill provided that it should be in or near Pretoria, the amendment that has been accepted in this connection is more acceptable to us, namely that it should be left to the discretion of the Minister. We have no doubt that if the true needs of the Blacks were taken into consideration, Soweto would have the prior claim to such a university as far as its location is concerned.

Furthermore, it is clear that this university is also intended, as has been explained to us, to have a number of satellite campuses throughout the country. For that reason, it has been decided that the university will probably not be a residential university, but will admit day and part-time students on a large scale. However, it seems probable to us that not all Black students who qualify to attend the university will live within commuting distance of this university or one of its satellites, so we wish to urge that consideration be given at an early stage to the provision of accommodation facilities at the campuses for those students who cannot attend the university on a daily basis.

As far as the internal structure of this university is concerned, this follows more or less the same general pattern as is applicable to the other universities, and we welcome this. However, a problem which kept cropping up was whether this university would be internally autonomous. My colleague and I adopted the standpoint on the Select Committee that if this university is indeed to be a full-fledged university and is to be regarded as such, we should like it to enjoy the same internal autonomy as to the existing universities in South Africa. We believe that this is essential in the interests of the university itself, the lecturers, the students and its public image. Hon. members on the Government side on the Select Committee felt that since this university was going to be financed by the State, at least initially, it could not lay claim to the same measure of autonomy as is enjoyed by the existing universities. However, we felt that since existing universities are after all subsidized to a considerable extent—80% or more—from State funds, this was not reason enough why these universities should not from the outset have the same internal autonomy as existing universities. In this connection—we shall be moving further amendments—we believe that since the Minister is actually in a position of power with regard to the appointment of the council and since we must assume that the Minister will appoint responsible and prominent people to that council and that he should therefore have enough confidence in the council which is basically appointed by him, there should not be any problem about giving this council of the university, together with the other organs of the university, the senate or whatever, the same degree of internal autonomy, as our existing universities have. Although the changes made on the Select Committee in respect of this point were in some ways improvements, I do want to emphasize very strongly that we are convinced of the need for internal autonomy. We therefore wish to propose—although it will probably be out of order—that as far as the control of the university is concerned, the Minister of National Education, and not the Minister of Education and Training, should be the Minister in control. I therefore move—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member Prof. Olivier as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, my party and I in particular too should like to pay tribute to the efficiency and the very friendly way in which the chairman did his task of chairing the Select Committee. I may say he was a very robust chairman and very decisive and that there was no question about what he meant when he said it. I should particularly like to pay tribute to his acumen and ability to have got the Select Committee to complete its work in such a very short space of time. He was quite a robust and dynamic chairman. He knew what he wanted and he managed to get the Select Committee to do it. I should also like to pay tribute in particular to the very able assistance and guidance given to us by the Director-General, Mr. Rousseau, and, of course, our parliamentary officer, Mr. Botha and the parliamentary staff. I am sure that all hon. members who serve on Select Committees will appreciate the value of the guidance and insight which these people have into the problems which a Select Committee must deal with.

I should also just like to reiterate the stand of my party, particularly in relation to clause 1(iv), which provides that “Minister” means the Minister of Education and Training.

Where is your party?

They have total confidence in me. We are a party of members who can take on an awfully large Opposition at any one time. We have no problem with that at all.

The stand of my party in respect of clause 1(iv) is very similar to that of the official Opposition. We would have preferred to have seen this particular Bill referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. However, history has of course dictated that that should not be so. However, had the amendment not been ruled out of order, we would certainly have supported it. The concept of the Vista University which will be a university essentially for Black people we subscribe to in broad principle. Particularly if one takes note of the fact that by the year 1990, which is within the life expectancy of most hon. members here, there will be 98 000 Black matriculants leaving school every year in the Republic of South Africa with exemption to attend university, there can be absolutely no question as to the necessity to have additional universities for Black students in South Africa.

However, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that with effect from 1978 we saw the beginning of the decline in the attendance of Whites at White universities. It did not happen at all 12 of them, but six universities started to show the first signs of decline in attendance. That is why we would have preferred to see that without ministerial exemption members of other race groups should also have been able to attend Vista University. We are in particular impressed by the proposed construct of the university as such. It will not be a classical university in accordance with the normal definition of a university, being a combination of the technikon and university concepts. I think this is very appropriate for South Africa, which finds itself with a Third World component in transition, moving as it is from Third World status to First World status.

If one looks at the development of the university system in Bophuthatswana, for instance, one can see how very necessary this type of university is, for in Bophuthatswana they are at the moment, on an experimental basis, carrying out a project that I hope will become a very successful system of tertiary education. They take all the university students into first year, and those in the science faculty, for example, who do not make the grade at the end of the year are not considered to be drop-outs who leave the system entirely. They are then restreamed into the technikon education system rather than that of university education.

I believe that to a large extent Vista University will also fulfil the functions of decreasing the number of drop-outs and re-channelling them into appropriate avenues of education, though not necessarily university education. We have registered our feelings about clause 1(iv), and we still consider it a tremendous pity that the hon. the Minister has not seen his way clear to allowing members of other race groups to attend this university.

In general I should just like to say that the extension of this university is an excellent idea. I think one should have a university with an administration office in one particular locality, whilst having other peoples’ campuses used as satellite campuses to extend the university’s educational system. We certainly welcome that. We hope that the hon. the Minister will take note of the recommendation of the commission that investigated tertiary education for Blacks. I refer in particular to page 171, paragraph 22.4, in which the commission recommends that the hon. the Minister and his department carefully consider removing the ministerial exemption system by allowing those universities which offer curriculi or have faculties that are not available at Black universities to decide for themselves who is allowed to enrol in such faculties. I merely want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the recommendations of this commission, and we do hope that he will take note of those recommendations. We believe that this report, which is to be read in conjunction with the De Lange Commission’s report, may well assist the hon. the Minister in reconsidering those aspects of university entrance autonomy that we advocate so strongly.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I should very much like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Durban North for the kind words they addressed to me. They are greatly appreciated. I also want to convey my thanks and appreciation to all the members of the Select Committee for the penetrating study they made of the legislation which is now before us, although time was very limited. I also want to thank them for the way in which they made their contributions on the Select Committee. In all, five meetings were held, and some were quite long and very demanding. I thank those hon. members for the fact that they were prepared to fit all this into their schedules so that we could make such rapid progress in dealing with this particular piece of legislation. I also wish to convey my sincere appreciation to the hon. members of the official Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Durban North, for the way in which they approached this matter. I want to endorse what has been said by other hon. members, and that is that all the members of that Select Committee were motivated by one consideration, namely that we should approach this piece of legislation as objectively as possible in the interests of what this legislation seeks to achieve, that we should discuss matters exhaustively and then produce a report for submission to this House.

I also want to refer to the many amendments which were proposed by the Select Committee and which hon. members have already received in the form of a document entitled “Select Committee Amendments to Vista University Bill”. This means that after a frank discussion, the Opposition members as well as the members of the NP who served on the Select Committee found that the legislation would be improved by these amendments. I think this is best proved by the fact that we produced several amendments. It is also true that certain of the matters that were discussed had an ideological basis, with the result that we differed on these. However, I have the greatest appreciation for the way in which we were able to disagree and for the fact that we did respect one another’s standpoints and that a very good spirit prevailed throughout. We also showed our respect for one another’s standpoints in the way in which we debated these matters. For this I express my sincere gratitude.

You will have noticed, Sir, that during the meetings of the Select Committee I ruled as chairman that the clause concerned could not be discussed because it would introduce a new principle which had not been discussed in the Second Reading debate.

In response to what the hon. members opposite have said today I wish to make a few remarks. The hon. member Prof. Olivier referred to the question of creating facilities outside the homelands. Let me say at once that as far as I know, this side of the House has never adopted the standpoint that a law cannot be amended or adjusted. However, the test is whether it would be in the interests of what the legislation seeks to achieve. If circumstances require that such adjustments be made, this side of the House has never hesitated to do so. As regards the fact that tertiary facilities are now being created outside the homelands as well, I want to say that this in itself proves that this side of the House realizes that there is a very great need for technical as well as academic training among Black people outside the homelands, especially at those places where they are present in great numbers in the White areas. This legislation is before us because the Government realized this. We are also grateful for the fact that we have been able to provide it at this stage in the interests of the Black people, but also in the interests of all the inhabitants of the country, because we believe that the results of this will make it possible for people to render a better service and that we shall all eventually share in the prosperity which will result from better service, higher productivity, etc.

The admission of students is another matter we could debate. However, I prefer not to discuss any further at this stage, because we can state our views on this during the discussion of certain clauses. As regards the unutilized facilities at some White universities—the hon. member for Durban North also referred to this—I should prefer not to say that there has been a drastic decline in the number of students, because we must not be misled by taking into account the student numbers for one year only. I do not think one can say the decline is part of a tendency. However, there is in fact a tendency for most universities not to experience any further growth. That I shall readily concede. Nor do I want to argue at this stage that because this is so, we should immediately utilize the unutilized facilities, because what is at issue here is the principle of the admission of people of different colours to specific universities, whether it be Whites or Coloured universities or students of colour to White universities. This, too, we can discuss further on a later occasion.

As regards the Retief report which the hon. the Minister kindly made available to us, I want to endorse the remarks made by the previous speakers who referred to it. I think it is a brilliant report. We are grateful for having had it available to us, because we were able to derive an enormous amount of information from it. It is true that certain views are held in the report in respect of so-called open universities. However, when we discuss specific clauses, I shall indicate on the basis of the same report that as far as the specific character of universities was concerned, there was a very strong insistence on having ethnically orientated universities in the interests of the people attending those universities. There are specific disadvantages involved when, for the sake of argument, a student from another ethnic group attends a White university.

Finally, I should very much like to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to Messrs. Rossouw and Botha and the parliamentary staff, who were invaluable to us during the meetings of the Select Committee, for the special assistance they gave us and the information they provided us with. I personally greatly appreciated this, and I believe that the same applies to all the members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I briefly want to associate myself with other hon. members and to thank the chairman and all the members of the Select Committee for the work they did and the contributions they made. Listening to hon. members of both Opposition parties, and especially hon. members of the official Opposition, I came to realize that there had been an enormous change in the attitude of, inter alia, the hon. member Prof. Olivier, since we discussed the Second Reading of the Bill in this House. At Second Reading he was vehemently opposed to Vista University. He would have nothing to do with it. However, the hon. member has now spoken of the university with sympathy and said that he realizes that there is great need for training facilities. I asked myself what had brought about this change in his attitude. When the hon. member for Durban North was speaking, I realized that the hon. member had perhaps been brought to his senses by the robust behaviour of the chairman of the Select Committee. A second reason may have been that the Retief Report showed him that there was indisputable proof of an enormous need for an institution such as the one we are proposing in this measure.

As regards the aspects that were mentioned, I want to agree with the chairman that we can continue our discussion of these when we come to the other clauses. At this stage I only want to say that the report which the hon. member had available to him on the Select Committee indicated that there was a tremendous need for an institution such as this one. The reason for this is basically to be found in the fact that our existing universities are situated at places where the normal groups of students which one finds at a university are absent. For example, there are students living in residences, day students and extramural students. At our existing universities, about 100% of the students live in residences and there are no day or extramural students. This greatly increases the need for an institution such as Vista University to provide specifically for day students and extramural students. This university will be ideally equipped to meet that need. I think the fact that the members of the Select Committee were able to study the Retief Report definitely helped to emphasize this need.

A few matters of principle have been mentioned, for example, that the university should be an open university and that certain provisions should be deleted, but with these points I cannot agree. It has been said that the university does not have internal autonomy, but I disagree with that. This university does have internal autonomy. The reason why the question of ministerial approval has been inserted into certain clauses is that the university will initially be 100% State financed. That is why it is essential that the Minister should grant his approval, because he will have to ensure that the necessary funds are available. That is why it is important, especially when the university enters into obligations which may subsequently have an effect on its budget. Steps taken at this stage which may have financial implications next year or the year after make it essential that the Minister should have a say.

Sir, I wish to thank you for having ruled the amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier out of order, for the simple reason that I think the hon. the Minister of National Education already has enough universities under his control. Other hon. members even provided the motivation for this by indicating that my ministery needed a university.

I thank hon. members who have participated in the debate up to now for their contributions in this House and in the Select Committee.

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

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This particular clause is probably the heart of this Bill. If this amendment is agreed to, the following words will be omitted—

We made our position very clear during the Second Reading debate. We also attempted to do the same in the Select Committee, and here I want to identify myself specifically with the comments passed by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Virginia, in regard to the officials and the Director General who assisted us.

We oppose this clause because it perpetuates the system of academic apartheid. It does so despite the Retief report. When the hon. the Minister referred to this report—rather unfairly, I thought—at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, without our having had sight of it, he made great play of the people who served on this commission and mentioned many of their names. Even after having read only one particular sentence in this report, it would be clear to anyone who has had sight of it—and it is a very excellent report in many respects—that the recommendations that were agreed to by all the members of the commission, with the exception of Prof. Dreyer, indicate that the commissioners were by preference in favour of an open university. I think we should really call this report the Dreyer report, because it would appear to me that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues have gone far further, in relation to Prof. Dreyer’s views, than those of all the other people whose names he mentioned to us at the end of the Second Reading debate. What does Prof. Dreyer have to say? He says this—

Prof. Dreyer obviously does not like that. However, he makes the case. He sat on the Committee and in one sentence he makes it clear that the Committee did not believe that academic apartheid or separateness should continue. Therefore we oppose this clause because we believe it perpetuates just that.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister himself has called, and I quote his words: “… for a system of education providing equal educational opportunities for all and equal access to education”. It has been demonstrated again and again that “separate” is not “equal”. This clause perpetuates inequality in the provision of education in this country. We oppose this clause because it perpetuates the permit system which is anathema to Black students. Furthermore, it perpetuates conflict. One only has to refer to the Snyman Commission’s report in which it was made very clear that students at the University of the North rejected the university as a product of separate development.

This policy has also been rejected by the University of Durban-Westville because its senate has asked for that university to be declared an open university. It is not the official Opposition that is trying to go against the tide. It is the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole who are going against the tide. As I have said before, they will not succeed, because it is inevitable that when it comes to tertiary education, the choice should be left to the university concerned. To legislate in this way in 1981 is a retrograde step that perpetuates something which is highly undesirable. If young people have an opportunity—I put this to the hon. the Minister—to associate in the lecture theatre, in the laboratory, on the sports fields and on the campus in general, it can only improve, not retard, race relations, but by perpetually separating institutions, the Government is actually feeding conflict in the fertile soil …

You are talking absolute rubbish.

It is absolutely true. Of course it is true. If the hon. member, who is so loud in his comments, would only read the Snyman Commission’s report …

I have read it.

Well, then obviously he has not understood it. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the Government has now conceded it because in the factory, in the workshop and the work place Black and White now work side by side. Is that generating conflict? Not at all.

Do not try to mix it all together.

When they are trained in the universities, however, we say that they must not be together, but thereafter we catapult them out with no preparation whatsoever. This is indefensible. In the fertile soil of a segregated institution there commonly flourishes an uncritical nationalism, and this exclusive nationalism of any group within the State is potentially a disruptive force.

I believe that the Government, by introducing this measure, is fanning the flames of exclusive nationalism and therefore putting at risk the peace and the security of all South Africans. To proceed with such a measure, even before the recommendations of the De Lange Commission are known, can only be described as the height of folly. The point of departure, as I understand it—and I am open to correction—for the HSRC commission was the establishment of a system of education providing equal educational opportunities for all and equal access to education, in response to the directive given by the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Prime Minister did not say all should be mixed together.

It is absolutely certain that this commission will have far-reaching recommendations in the field of tertiary education. I have not seen the report. I understand it is going to be tabled next Friday, which gives us no opportunity to debate it in this session. All I ask is: Why can the Government not wait until those recommendations are known? Why must it jump the gun in this way? I believe that this is a bad step. It could only hinder the progress which may be recommended and which may be accepted by the Cabinet.

Sir, let me reiterate! We welcome any initiative to provide tertiary education for Blacks in urban areas—and we talk about urban areas; not necessarily White areas—but we cannot support the establishment of yet another racially exclusive university.

Mr. Chairman, the deletion of this subsection, as proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands, runs counter to an entire principle, and consequently hon. members on this side of the House cannot accept it. It is a fundamental principle of hon. members on this side of the House that we must have separate universities. We argued about this standpoint ad nauseam in the Select Committee. Consequently I do not know whether it is necessary for us to take this matter any further during this debate.

The hon. member for Pinelands argued that when it came to work, we were prepared to work shoulder to shoulder with persons of colour, but that when it came to education and training, we believed that there had to be separation. This is true. We on this side of the House believe in ethnically orientated (volksgerigte) education and training. We believe in the education of every nation (volk) in its own sphere, and consequently we cannot support this amendment of his.

Furthermore, I should like to read out the amendment moved by the hon. member Mr. Schutte on the Select Committee. However, before doing so and motivating it, I should also, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House who served on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Virginia, like to convey our gratitude to him for the way in which he presided as chairman. It was an absolute pleasure for us to make use of his superior knowledge and to work under him as chairman. We on this side of the House want to thank him most sincerely.

I should now like to read out the amendment moved by the hon. member, Mr. Schutte on the Select Committee, and which the Select Committee agreed to. It reads as follows—

This amendment is, I believe, an improvement on the terminology of the clause as contained in the original draft Bill, viz. that the seat of the university shall be near Pretoria. In terms of the proposed amendment the seat of the university shall be at a place determined by the Minister. I believe that this consequently gives the hon. the Minister more room for manoeuvre, and enables him to determine the seat of the university more freely.

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a very fortunate position in that this party is able to support both amendments—the amendment moved on behalf of the hon. member, Mr. Schutte, as well as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands. There are, however, very different reasons why we are able to support these two amendments.

I should specifically want to speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands. We feel extremely strongly about the principle involved in this particular subsection, nl that the university should be an open university and not reserved exclusively for the use of Black South African citizens. In addition to that, of course, it is implied that one will remove the powers of exemption that the Minister has.

I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that he is dealing here with a very, very important principle. That is the principle of the freedom of association of the individual. Of course, the other side of the coin in this instance is the freedom of the group to dissociate. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that we have already accepted that principle in practice. What is more is that the Government has access to that principle. I need only refer to the sport situation in South Africa, the situation which is called the normalization of sport. It is now being left to individual sport administrators and sport clubs to decide which members of which race groups they are prepared to accept within their ranks. I do agree with the hon. the Minister, however, that there must be a freedom to dissociate. That is the one aspect, I believe, with which the hon. the Minister will agree. Because of that my party feels very strongly that it should be left entirely to the university authorities to decide what the qualifications of any student will be for entrance into that university, and that also includes race.

We note with interest that very recently the University of Stellenbosch was going to hold a referendum to decide whether the university should operate on an open basis. For some reason unknown to us it was decided not to hold that referendum. Perhaps it is a little bit close to the by-election in Piketberg or perhaps it is because we anticipate that the De Lange Commission, like the Retief Committee, is going to make fairly substantial recommendations in this respect. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if we are able to leave sports bodies with the autonomy and the power to decide whom they can associate with, he would not agree that the same can be done for Vista University. I refer specifically to clause 3(2) which states—

I am against this. Mr. Chairman, I see that you are getting a little bit concerned and I am a bit worried that you are going to rule me out of order, but I think this is extremely relevant here. I ask the hon. the Minister as well: If this referendum had been held at the University of Stellenbosch—which would indicate local option and would be an expression of the will of the student body—would the hon. the Minister have agreed to that referendum if it had recommended that the University of Stellenbosch should be an open university? I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister on that.

No.

The hon. the Minister says “no”.

Order! The hon. member is going very wide now.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. I am going a little bit wide. As I said, it is the principle involved in subsection (2), which deals with open and closed universities. Therefore we believe that, if an amendment were accepted to this clause, the university would be culturally enriched in that the one race group would benefit from its association with the other race group, and in fact there would be no risk at all of conflict occurring between the students of the different race groups who would be served by this university. Therefore we say unhesitatingly that this party supports the principle that it be left to the university authorities to decide whom they should allow to attend the university and that equally they should have the right to remain exclusive should they wish to. However, we want to move the power and authority to decide away from the Minister and leave it with the university authorities. Therefore we shall be supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to a few of the allegations made by the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Durban North. After that I want to furnish some evidence as to why I believe that this legislation at present before the House, and in particular this specific clause, clause 3(2), is in fact not only justified but also in the best interests of the Black people.

To begin with I want to react to the statement by the hon. member for Pinelands, viz. that “separate is not equal”. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that this may be true in some cases, but to say that it is true under all circumstances, is a generalization. It may be true in specific cases and I want to furnish an example of this. It is indeed true that we cannot speak of equal education, even in an English-medium and an Afrikaans-medium school, but there are equal facilities in respect of the education and training in those particular schools. It may also be that one does not have exactly the same facilities, but there may be equivalent facilities in the two schools in question. Specifically, too, when it comes to a White university as against a university for Blacks, one can have equal opportunities, as well as equivalent, if not equal, facilities in respect of buildings, equipment, etc. Consequently, to say that “separate is not equal” is a false accusation. It is not true in all circumstances.

Furthermore, I want to say that the view expressed that conflict was being repeated in this way, is absolute nonsense. Allow me to state when it would in actual fact be a repetition and emphasis of conflict. This is the case when both groups are incited and prompted to see discrimination in this system, for in point of fact there is no question of discrimination. If we are out to tell the Black people, the Coloureds or the Indians that their facilities and their education are inferior, we are promoting polarization. I believe that it is up to all of us to act responsibly, specifically in respect of what we want to achieve. If, on the basis of the arguments I have advanced and the examples I have furnished with regard to equivalence, we were able to indicate that there is such a thing as differentiation in contrast to discrimination, there would be no conflict, but rather understanding, not only for the differences between peoples, but also for the differences between the cultural life, the education and training of particular peoples. It is unnecessary for these aspects to conflict with one another.

What does the Snyman Report say?

I shall come to that report as well as to other reports presently. The hon. member quoted only the Snyman Report, but I could also quote from the Van Wyk de Vries Report and the Retief Report concerning this matter. However, we support the evidence and it will in any event be published at a later stage.

My standpoint is that we cannot govern from the grave. I will not say today that this could never happen, but I am sure of one thing, viz. that it could only happen if, according to the governing party, it is in the best interests of the cause it has to serve. On the basis of specific motivations and standpoints adhered to by this side of the House, it is not at present in the best interests of the cause which must be served.

Could it happen next year?

I have already said that we do not govern from the grave and I am not prepared to commit myself to anything. However, what I do want to say to hon. members opposite is that this is most definitely not in the best interests of the cause it must serve. As to whether it would ever be in its best interests, I should prefer not to express an opinion. [Interjections.]

Why did we not wait until the De Lange Commission had published its report? This aspect was discussed during the Second Reading debate. Let me make it quite clear that the Government naturally places a very high premium on the findings of any committee of inquiry it appoints, and consequently on its recommendations as well. However, ultimately it is the Government that has to govern and assume the responsibility. It was emphasized during the Second Reading that because of the acute need among the Black people—and the official Opposition agrees with that—it is necessary to establish this specific facility, viz. the Vista University, as soon as possible. For what reason on earth must we now wait for the De Lange Commission report? This would mean that we would only be able to proceed with this legislation in a year’s time. Does the hon. member for Pinelands want us to start with this university only in a year’s time?

We are sitting again in January.

Furthermore, the fact is that the Government has specific points of departure, and they will most certainly be maintained. If recommendations were made which conflicted with them, the Government would, I believe, certainly weigh them up against its specific principles. Why, therefore, since we are dealing here with a university for Black people, should we wait for the De Lange Report, which deals with education in general?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.